Speaker’s Statement

Mr Speaker: I wish to report to the House that the rooms of a Member were searched yesterday pursuant to a warrant issued by the circuit judge in Preston Crown court on 16 May. The warrant related to the investigation of a serious arrestable offence.
	I should remind Members, as did my predecessor in 2008, that the precincts of Parliament are not a haven from the law. In accordance with the protocol issued by my predecessor on 8 December 2008 on the execution of search warrants within the precincts of the House of Commons, I considered the warrant personally and was advised by Officers of the House that there were no lawful grounds on which it would be proper to refuse its execution. In addition, as provided for in paragraph 6 of the protocol, I consulted the Attorney-General and the Solicitor-General, who concurred in this advice. I am very grateful to them. The Clerk of the House was kept fully informed throughout, and also concurred.
	The Serjeant at Arms and Speaker’s Counsel were present when the search was conducted. Undertakings have been given by the police officers as to the handling of any parliamentary material until such time as any issue of privilege is resolved. The investigation is continuing and it would not be right to comment further. I will not take questions on my statement.

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS

WORK AND PENSIONS

The Secretary of State was asked—

Work Capability Assessment

Ann McKechin: What steps he plans to take to implement the recommendations made by Professor Harrington in his final report on the work capability assessment in November 2012.

Mark Hoban: As with each of Professor Harrington’s reports, we have adopted all recommendations to improve the process we inherited from the previous Government. We are in the process of implementing those recommendations.

Ann McKechin: The Minister will be aware that the rate of successful appeals has actually increased, which would appear to suggest that the reforms to the system are not yet working. Does he intend to investigate the claims made by Greg Wood, a former medical assessor for Atos, who said that the system was skewered against the claimant and made several serious allegations about how people’s claims were assessed?

Mark Hoban: As I said, we are in the process of implementing Professor Harrington’s recommendations. I would make the point to the hon. Lady, however, that when her party was in government, one in 10 people received the full employment support allowance, but as a consequence of our reforms, three in 10 people now receive it, which demonstrates that the system is an improvement on the one that we inherited.

Charlie Elphicke: I thank the Minister for that answer. Does it not indicate that the Government take ESA very seriously and are being diligent in providing unconditional support to those who need it?

Mark Hoban: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I want a system that gives the right support to the people who need it the most. We should also recognise that because of our reforms and improvements to the process, only 15% of fit-for-work decisions are successfully overturned.

Nick Brown: Will the Minister explain the successful appeals? What factors underlie the success rate?

Mark Hoban: The tribunal has published a list setting out the reasons why appeals are successful. In most cases, it is a consequence either of oral evidence presented at the tribunal or newer evidence being presented.

Greg Mulholland: The Minister will be well aware that there have been issues of public confidence in Atos ever since it was first commissioned to do this work by the last Government. Are the Government looking into and making progress on Professor Harrington’s alternative assessment process for those with hidden and fluctuating conditions, which is a very important area?

Mark Hoban: My hon. Friend raises an important issue. As a consequence of Professor Harrington’s recommendations, we are considering a range of different descriptors. We are working closely with medical experts and charities to assess those descriptors and will report later in the year on the effectiveness of the programme.

Enterprise Allowance

Paul Uppal: What recent assessment he has made of the new enterprise allowance.

Mark Hoban: I believe that the new enterprise allowance has been very effective in helping people set up their own business. As at the end of November last year, 31,540 have received or are receiving support from a mentor, and more than 15,000 have commenced trading. As my hon. Friend knows from his
	own experience, self-employment not only enables people to take responsibility for themselves and their family’s welfare, but gives others the chance of a job as the business grows.

Paul Uppal: Does my hon. Friend agree with me— I speak as somebody who ran their own business for 20 years before coming to this place—that the role of volunteer business mentors is crucial in that step between the classroom and self-employment?

Mark Hoban: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I congratulate the voluntary mentors who are taking their role seriously, helping people to get into work and identify ways of setting up their own business. On Thursday, I was in Bradford talking to a group called Inspired Neighbourhoods, which promotes self-employment in its area and provides many voluntary mentors to help people take advantage of those opportunities.

Bill Esterson: Given the difficulties and challenges in setting up a business, does the Minister agree that it is essential that the advice given ensures that people can succeed, so that they do not end up in a worse situation than if they had not gone down that route in the first place?

Mark Hoban: The hon. Gentleman is right. That was one of the lessons from Inspired Neighbourhoods, which sat down with people and said, “This is the amount of money you need to make from your business to ensure you become free from benefits and help your family to look after themselves.”

Rob Wilson: I am sure my hon. Friend will join me in welcoming last week’s employment figures, which show that the number of people claiming jobseeker’s allowance in Reading East is now at its second lowest level since February 2009. Given Labour’s poor track record of securing sustainable employment, does he agree that the Opposition’s proposed job guarantee would fail to provide as many positive outcomes as the new enterprise allowance?

Mark Hoban: My hon. Friend is absolutely right to highlight the fact that the number of people claiming JSA fell by 7,000 last month, which also saw the 11th consecutive monthly fall in the number of young people claiming jobseeker’s allowance. The measures we are taking demonstrate the effectiveness of our programmes, particularly the new enterprise allowance.

Seema Malhotra: Can the Minister explain why people on the Work programme are not allowed to take up the new enterprise allowance and why he does not do more to encourage Work programme participants into self-employment?

Mark Hoban: The hon. Lady should be aware that a large number of Work programme providers see self-employment as a route out. For example, I know from talking to Avanta, which operates the Work programme in the north-east and elsewhere, that it sees lots of opportunities for people to get into self-employment and supports them to do so.

Julian Brazier: Does my hon. Friend agree that, as well as providing opportunities to get into self-employment, the small businesses generated are potential generators of many jobs? Has he seen the academic work showing that in business cycle after business cycle, small businesses created during a recession have a much higher chance of survival than those created at other points in the cycle?

Mark Hoban: That is a very good point. When I have visited jobcentres, I have seen examples of people who have created employment opportunities for themselves and others as a consequence of setting up their own business. That is a testament to the strength and resilience of the sector.

Barry Sheerman: Does the Minister realise—I tell him this as someone who has employed a lot of people in social enterprise—that social enterprise is also a good destination for entrepreneurs? Is he aware of the critical importance of high-quality mentoring? I know he went to Bradford; he could have come to Huddersfield to see the Enterprise Foundation. The quintessential success of that operation was down to good mentoring and trained mentors who carry on mentoring over the long term.

Mark Hoban: Indeed. I went to Portsmouth last month to see the Cathedral Innovation Centre, which was working with people from the Royal Society of Arts and Portsmouth university business school, as well as volunteers, to provide the right sort of mentors to enable social enterprises to get set up and be successful.

Employment and Support Allowance (Appeals)

Sheila Gilmore: What financial support his Department makes available to sick and disabled people while their claim for employment and support allowance undergoes mandatory reconsideration prior to the formal appeal.

Mark Hoban: Jobseeker’s allowance is available to those found fit for work. Alternatively, employment and support allowance can be paid for those who subsequently decide to appeal. ESA can be backdated to include the reconsideration period. Those who are put in the work-related activity group, but appeal because they want to move to the support group, will continue to be paid ESA at the assessment rate, as now.

Sheila Gilmore: I thank the Minister for that answer. A number of my constituents who have claimed for JSA have been told that they are not fit for work—they have a medical certificate—and are therefore not eligible because they are not available for work. What are people supposed to do in that situation? Will it not drive them into the hands of payday lenders?

Mark Hoban: First, if someone is found fit for work, they should be eligible for jobseeker’s allowance. The hon. Lady will be aware, as I am, of some of the hardship arrangements that are in place to help people, but it is absolutely right to try to encourage those claiming incapacity benefit to be reassessed, to ensure
	that those who are fit for work can get back into work, rather than be written off and face a lifetime of inactivity, as happened under previous Governments.

Jane Ellison: More broadly, when the Select Committee on Work and Pensions looked at this issue, we were interested in claimants’ experience of face-to-face interviews and, in particular, claimants with mental health problems. Can the Minister update the House on his assessment of those areas?

Mark Hoban: As a member of the Work and Pensions Committee, my hon. Friend speaks knowledgeably about this issue. When the employment and support allowance was introduced under the previous Government, a third of those with a mental health condition received it. As a consequence of the reforms we have introduced, that number has now gone up to 43%.

Peter Hain: Is the Minister aware of the representations that I have made to the Secretary of State about a constituent of mine who has been suffering from mental illness for 13 years? Three months before his Atos test, he tried to commit suicide. Nevertheless, he was immediately refused a continuation of his benefit and was put into the limited liability group. Does the Minister not realise that there are some horrendous cases of punitive action being taken against people who are completely innocent in this respect? That constituent was without any visible means of income, and I had to refer him to the food bank in order to prevent him from starving. Is the Minister proud of such consequences of his policies?

Mark Hoban: I remind the right hon. Gentleman that he was in the Government who introduced the work capability assessment and the employment and support allowance. I have set out the improvements that we have made to the system that we inherited from the previous Government, which was not working. We are continuing to make reforms, and that is demonstrated by fact that the proportion of people claiming employment and support allowance has tripled under this Government.

Philip Hollobone: I am afraid that appeals to tribunals following refused ESA claims are taking far too long. The Leicester office, which deals with appeals from my constituents, now has a waiting list of 40 weeks. I know that this is not the responsibility of the Minister’s Department, but will he liaise with the Ministry of Justice to get this sorted out as quickly as possible?

Mark Hoban: I agree with my hon. Friend that the whole process is taking far too long. That is why we are working closely with the Ministry of Justice to reform the system, to ensure that appeals can be heard more quickly. We are also working with charities to see what additional support we can give to people claiming employment and support allowance, to ensure that the right information is made available as soon as possible to enable claims to be processed as quickly as possible.

Ian Paisley Jnr: What would the Minister say to my constituent, Philip Gillespie, who served our nation in Afghanistan and lost his right leg in an explosion there? Last month, he lost his disability
	living allowance and was told that he would be caught up by the new military system that is soon to be put in place. I hope that he will be caught up by it, but will the Minister ensure that this never happens again, and that a soldier serving his nation is never refused a benefit to which he is entitled?

Mark Hoban: I am not familiar with the details of the case to which the hon. Gentleman refers, but we are working on arrangements with the Ministry of Defence and, in future, such cases will be dealt with by the Ministry rather than by the Department for Work and Pensions. However, the assessment is about functionability, not about someone’s condition. The old system, under which people were judged on their condition, resulted in many people being written off for decades because of their illness.

Offshore Safety Inspections (North Sea)

Tom Greatrex: What assessment he has made of the arrangements for offshore safety inspections in the North sea.

Mark Hoban: I meet the chairman and chief executive of the Health and Safety Executive regularly to discuss health and safety matters, including those relating to the offshore sector, as appropriate. The departmental Select Committee and the Maitland review, which was commissioned after the Deepwater Horizon episode, both concluded that we had a strong offshore regulatory system.

Tom Greatrex: The Minister will be aware—or at least he should be—that next month will be the 25th anniversary of the Piper Alpha disaster, which precipitated the present health and safety approach taken in the North sea. Does he share the concern expressed by the trade unions operating in the North sea that the Health and Safety Executive’s energy division was set up without any consultation with the unions, and that the division undertakes not only offshore inspections but others as well? Will he guarantee that neither the number of inspectors available to conduct offshore inspections nor the number of such inspections will change as a result of this?

Mark Hoban: We have brought together various aspects of the energy sector in a single department. That bringing together of complementary skills is a sensible response to the increased diversification of the energy sector. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that there is no slackening of focus on the offshore sector; indeed, we are recruiting more offshore inspectors.

State Pension

Roger Williams: What assessment he has made of the effects of planned changes to the state pension on women born between April 1952 and April 1953.

Steve Webb: We have published a detailed assessment of women in that group, and we have found that an
	overwhelming majority will receive more pension over their lifetime than under the existing system than would a man born on the same day who receives a single-tier pension.

Roger Williams: I thank the Minister for that reply, and for the work that he has done on this matter. Given the fact that the new system and the current one will run concurrently after the implementation of the single-tier pension, can he reassure women in the affected age group that none will lose out in the transition, compared with women who are eligible for the proposed single-tier pension? Would he also consider meeting a group of women from my constituency to discuss the matter?

Steve Webb: Obviously, women in the age group we are talking about get a basic state pension based on 30 years, whereas those under single tier will need 35 years and those a few years older need 39 years. Each group has a different system, but the key point is that the new system will cost exactly the same as the system it replaced. We are not putting extra money into new pensions and ignoring today’s pensioners; it is the same amount of money, but spent in a simpler way.

Andrew Gwynne: There are 900 of my constituents who are female and were born between 6 April 1951 and 6 April 1953, and who will not receive these new pension entitlements while men of the same age will. Will the Minister take this opportunity to apologise to those 900 women and bring forward proposals to look again at making sure that we have proper equality in the system?

Steve Webb: I think that the hon. Gentleman might have written his question before he heard my earlier answer. Comparing those women in his constituency with men born on the same day, as he did, misses the point that those men will have to wait several years longer for their pension. They would far rather be in the position of the women who get their pension at 62 or 63.

Gregg McClymont: The Minister’s response to my hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish (Andrew Gwynne) is to say that these women are in a far better position than equivalent men. Let me push him a little on this. How did he come to a calculation suggesting that these women are better off? My understanding is that, under the Government’s plan, 700,000 women currently aged between 60 and 62 will on retirement receive a lower state pension every week than a man of the same age. Will he tell us specifically by how much a week on average these women will receive on retirement than a man of the same age?

Steve Webb: As the hon. Gentleman knows, two things matter: how much people get, and when they get it, and he ignores the second thing. A man born on the same day has to wait until he is 65, but the women he is talking about will get a pension at 61, 62 or 63. The fact that they get the pension for years longer more than offsets a lower average receipt.

Under-occupancy Penalty (Wales)

Paul Flynn: How many households in Wales have been affected by the under-occupancy penalty to date.

Steve Webb: Our equality impact assessment estimates that around 40,000 claimants will be affected by the removal of the spare room subsidy in Wales. A formal evaluation of the policy will be carried out over a two-year period with initial findings available early next year.

Paul Flynn: BBC Wales reports that for every 70 victims of the bedroom tax, only one alternative unit of accommodation is available. That means that 69 out of every 70 will have no choice but to endure this tax, which is unfair, impractical and will further impoverish the already poor.

Steve Webb: The hon. Gentleman is right that we are asking social tenants to pay £2 a day towards a spare room—something that private tenants had to do under Labour’s local housing allowance scheme. Within Wales, a quarter of all social accommodation is one-bedroom properties. If we can deal with overcrowding and people on the waiting list in Wales, we will be doing the right thing by the people of Wales.

Andrew Bridgen: I am pleased that £50 million-worth of discretionary housing payments have been made available to ease the transition in difficult cases and to support families. How will the Minister ensure that my constituents are aware of this extra support?

Steve Webb: My hon. Friend makes an important point. We need local authorities and social landlords, with which we have been working, to alert tenants to the fact that over £150 million has been made available to local authorities this year to help individuals in hard cases.

Jessica Morden: Monmouthshire council has allocated over a third of its £121,000-worth of discretionary housing payments in the six weeks since the bedroom tax came in. Given that the demand and the need is so high, does the Minister really believe that the Government have given enough money?

Steve Webb: It was always the case that there would be an initially high level of demand at the start of the year, because unlike other discretionary housing payments that arise randomly through the course of the year, this will apply for the whole year. We expected and planned for a higher rate of demand at the start of the year. We do keep these things under review, of course, and we are in close contact with local authorities in Wales to monitor the early implementation of this policy.

Philip Davies: What will the Minister do to ensure that councils actually use the discretionary funding that has been given and do not hide the money away in order to make a political point against this particular policy?

Steve Webb: My hon. Friend is right. We need to ensure that local authorities use the money that has been given to them to assist households when an extra contribution would be helpful. We have given a huge amount of taxpayers’ money to councils for that purpose, and we expect them to use every penny of it.

Glenda Jackson: Government changes already require the British taxpayer to find nearly £2 billion more to rehouse vulnerable families. How many families does the Minister think will need to be rehoused as a result of this punitive bedroom tax?

Steve Webb: I do not recognise that number at all. In fact, many of the scare stories that have come from the hon. Lady and others have proved not to transpire. When we capped rents in the private rented sector, we were told that there would be mass evictions and that vast droves of people would be moving all over London, but the evidence has not borne that out.

Employment

Pauline Latham: What recent estimate he has made of the number of people in full-time employment.

Iain Duncan Smith: There are more than 21 million people in full-time work, and the number has risen by over 600,000 since the general election.

Pauline Latham: I thank the Secretary of State for that answer. Can he confirm that the number of people claiming the main out-of-work benefits since the 2010 election has fallen?

Iain Duncan Smith: Yes; this is an intriguing figure. As we have succeeded in enabling people who, when the last Government left office, were inactive but of working age to find employment, the total number of people without jobs has fallen by 380,000 since 2010. That fall has been driven by a fall in the rate of inactivity that was left by the last Government. As a result, the number of people receiving incapacity benefit and a number of other benefits—including lone parents—is at its lowest for some two decades.

David Wright: Unemployment, including youth unemployment, is stubbornly high in Telford. Does the Secretary of State still talk to the Chancellor of the Exchequer or indeed the Prime Minister, because there was nothing in the Budget about youth unemployment, and there was nothing about it in the Queen’s Speech? Is he talking to them at all?

Iain Duncan Smith: I talk to them regularly, and they talk to me. What I tell them constantly is that the figure for youth unemployment is lower than the figure that we inherited. We have also introduced the youth contract, which provides us with extra money so that we can give many people below the age of 24 a real chance to benefit from work experience programmes and apprenticeships. Many more people will go into apprenticeships under this Government than ever went into them under the last Government.

Graham Evans: Last week I held my second jobs fair, at which 30 local employers met 300 jobseekers in my constituency to talk about more than 300 vacancies. Can my right hon. Friend confirm that there is currently a record number of vacancies in the United Kingdom?

Iain Duncan Smith: That is correct. On average, about half a million vacant jobs are advertised, and that may not represent all the work that is available. Our universal jobmatch scheme ensures that claimants look for and apply for jobs, because they must be mandated on to the system. The number of private sector jobs has increased by 1.25 million since the election, and every six jobs created over the last six years correspond with one job loss in the public sector.

Andrew Love: The House hears what the Secretary of State has to say about youth unemployment, but there is a youth unemployment crisis among young black men in particular. What action will he take to lower the present 50% level?

Iain Duncan Smith: I agree that there is a particular problem in that regard. I am talking to all the voluntary sector groups as well as to providers, including all our staff at the DWP, and also to Opposition Members. We need to make more progress, because youth unemployment is not good regardless of the numbers involved, and we cannot do enough to drive it down. I can give the hon. Gentleman a guarantee that we will make more efforts to deal with this particular problem.

Benefits (Immigration)

Andrea Leadsom: What steps he plans to take to restrict access to benefits for new migrants from other EU member states.

Christopher Chope: What steps he is taking to reduce the eligibility to UK benefits of nationals of other EU member states.

Mark Hoban: We are taking steps to tighten further the rules relating to all migrants, not just new migrants. We are strengthening the habitual residence test; the Home Office is creating a statutory presumption that European economic area jobseekers and workers who are involuntarily unemployed will not have a right to reside here after six months unless they can demonstrate they are actively seeking work and have a genuine chance of finding a job; and we will prevent those with no entitlement to work in the UK from claiming contributory benefits.

Andrea Leadsom: Does my hon. Friend agree that it may be a good idea in the longer term to consider a more contributions-based system of benefits for all? One of the biggest problems for many people is although they may have worked and paid into the system for many years, if they are out of work for a period they receive little more than someone who turned up only last week.

Mark Hoban: My hon. Friend raises an interesting point, but she might be aware that in a contributory benefits system those benefits can be exported to other EU member states, and she may think that is a disadvantage of the contributory system.

Christopher Chope: Why do the Government not insist that out-of-work benefits paid to non-United Kingdom citizens should be paid at the rate of benefit prevailing in the claimant’s home country? Should we not insist on that being a red line in the welcome forthcoming renegotiation?

Mark Hoban: My hon. Friend is aware that we are, in part, operating within a framework determined by the European Union. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State met his German counterpart last week, and further meetings are planned for next month with European employment Ministers to discuss these very issues.

Pensioners

Gavin Williamson: What steps he is taking to help pensioners.

Steve Webb: Even where we have had to take difficult decisions on welfare spending, we have systematically protected pensioners from the impacts of changes. Indeed, we have gone further: we have permanently increased the cold weather payment to £25, and the basic state pension is now a higher share of average earnings than at any time in the past 20 years.

Gavin Williamson: Unlike the Opposition, we on this side of the House recognise that it is not right to increase basic state pensions by 75p: we give proper increases. What more is the Minister doing to ensure that retirement incomes continue to rise in the future?

Steve Webb: As my hon. Friend knows, our goal is to have a retirement income based on the foundation of a simple, single, decent state pension—the legislation on this was announced in the Queen’s Speech—complemented by automatic enrolment into a workplace pension, so people have a pension based on their national insurance and a pension of their own with a contribution from both the employer and the taxpayer. That is a good combination to build on.

Nick Raynsford: What does the Minister have to say to my constituent, a 91-year-old pensioner who is occupying a four-bedroom property and has been told that, because the priority has to be given to allocating smaller homes to people currently being hit by the bedroom tax, she has no immediate prospect of being housed in smaller, more suitable accommodation?

Steve Webb: We expect social landlords to manage their housing stock effectively, and many social landlords have put in place schemes to enable older tenants to trade down, which many of them would want to do. If the right hon. Gentleman’s constituent is 91, I would think the housing association in question has had plenty of time to do something about that.

Mike Freer: One of the barriers to pension planning is uncertainty. Does the Minister agree that auto-enrolment and the single-tier pension will give the certainty that both pensioners and the pension industry need?

Steve Webb: My hon. Friend is right: we cannot build a building on an uneven foundation. That is why we had to get state pension reform right with a single, simple, predictable state pension. That makes private saving and automatic enrolment far more effective, and I am grateful for his support for that principle.

Universal Credit (IT System)

Clive Betts: What assessment he has made of the preparedness of the universal credit IT delivery system.

Iain Duncan Smith: The IT system to support the pathfinder roll-out from April 2013 is up and running. As Members would expect, we continue to monitor, test and learn. That system is a crucial aspect of our pathfinder approach—although not all of it, by any means—which will guarantee the careful and deliberate wider roll-out of universal credit.

Clive Betts: I thank the Secretary of State for that answer, but will he confirm that three of the pathfinders are not going ahead precisely because the computer system is not ready? Will he also confirm that in the one pathfinder that is going ahead, the staff have one computer screen on which to record information, and the rest of the claimant information has be written down by pen on a notepad? That is the situation, is it not? How can the Secretary of State possibly come to this House and justify that as being satisfactory, after years of preparation?

Iain Duncan Smith: The hon. Gentleman is fundamentally wrong. All the pathfinders are going ahead. The IT system is but a part of that, and goes ahead in one of the pathfinders. The other three are already testing all the other aspects of universal credit and in July will, essentially, themselves roll out the remainder of the pathfinder, and more than 7,000 people will be engaged in it. All that nonsense the hon. Gentleman has just said is completely untrue.

David Mowat: The pilot commenced on time and substantially on budget at one of the pathfinder locations, implying that much of the application must be working. Does that not contrast well with the failed big-bang approach taken by the last Government in similar implementations?

Iain Duncan Smith: I repeat to my hon. Friend what I said to the hon. Member for Sheffield South East (Mr Betts): the reality is that it is far better for us to do this carefully, and to check each time that the systems work and that those who are meant to be using them know what they are doing, so we learn the lessons from the whole system. The last Government went for a big-bang approach in one project after another, and most of them literally did just that: they blew up.

Stephen Timms: The Secretary of State will recall that I wrote to him in November 2010 to warn that the IT system could not possibly be delivered in the time scale he was claiming—unfortunately, that has proved to be the case. In November 2011, he announced that 1 million people would be receiving universal credit by April 2014. What is his latest estimate of the number of people who will be receiving universal credit by April 2014?

Iain Duncan Smith: Let me remind the right hon. Gentleman of a quote from the Institute for Fiscal Studies about the way we are rolling the system out. It said:
	“The level of problems caused to tax credit claimants and employers as the new tax credit systems went live in April 2003 demonstrated that there were undetected gaps in the design of the testing regime for the systems.”
	This system is a success. We have four years to roll it out, we are rolling it out now, we will continue the roll-out nationwide and we will have a system that works—and one that works because we have tested it properly.

Stephen Timms: In November 2011, 1 million people were going to be claiming by next April: now, the Secretary of State has not the faintest idea how many there will be—so much for this project being on schedule. There were supposed to be four pathfinders, but now there is only one, under which the only people who can get universal credit are those in the most straightforward circumstances. How long will it now realistically be before he has an IT system that can cope with, for example, applicants with children?

Iain Duncan Smith: Interestingly enough, I had the right hon. Gentleman and the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill (Mr Byrne) in to see me last year and I told them exactly how we were rolling the system out—[Interruption.] No, no. I told them that the pathfinder would continue first of all with single claimants. As for the idea that somehow things have changed—he knew about that then and the situation is exactly the same now.

Disability Living Allowance/Motability

Rosie Cooper: What steps he is taking to publicise the potential effects of planned regulation changes on claimants currently in receipt of (a) the disability living allowance higher rate and (b) Motability cars.

Esther McVey: We wrote to every DLA claimant earlier this year, as well as holding stakeholder engagement events and MPs’ events. Online, there is a personal independence payment checker and a PIP toolkit. As the hon. Lady asks specifically about the highest rates of both components, I am sure that she will pleased to know that we have increased those rates under PIP from 16% to 23%, which is an increase of seven percentage points.

Rosie Cooper: It came as a great shock to my constituents that the new regulations will see the removal of the Motability lease payments after 28 days of a person’s
	being in hospital. Will the Minister explain why she is prepared to leave disabled people worried about going into hospital and potentially losing their Motability car, losing their deposit and having to restart the whole process again when they come out? They will be worried about what it will mean for them to reapply for a new car with new adaptations that requires a new deposit. Additional administration will fall on the Department for Work and Pensions, so who will bear the cost incurred when the exclusively and specifically adapted Motability cars have to be returned—

Mr Speaker: Order. I think that the hon. Lady’s essay —perhaps even her thesis—has been completed.

Esther McVey: Obviously, I do not know the specific details of the case, but when somebody is in hospital for a long time they will not need the Motability car. However, every case is taken on its specifics and everything is dealt with in the most sensitive way. That has always been the case with Motability cars.

Anne McIntosh: A constituent with a severely disabled daughter who is dependent on disability living allowance and a Motability car came to see me. Will my hon. Friend assure me that my constituent will be entitled to an appeal before those things are arbitrarily removed?

Esther McVey: At the moment, we are considering working age people and that is where the changes are happening, so we would not be specifically considering the case my hon. Friend mentions. However, if she is talking about what happens at the end of a fixed-term period for which the child has entitlement the assessment would be the same as it always was for DLA. The focus of the reforms is to ensure that the billions of pounds we are spending every year—a figure that is going up over this Parliament—will be focused on those who most need it.

Anne Begg: The Minister really needs to look at the specifics of this. Her regulations have changed: a person in hospital will now lose their higher mobility rate after four weeks, instead of 13 weeks. Their Motability car will have to go back, even though they may have spent thousands of pounds on adaptations to it. The Minister really has to look at how her regulations have changed.

Esther McVey: Obviously, I do indeed look at those regulations, but, as I said, every case is looked at on a case-by-case basis, to see what is required in that specific instance.

Anne McGuire: The Minister and the Secretary of State have recently been found out using figures that show a dramatic increase in the number of people receiving disability living allowance. To quote the Secretary of State, they wanted
	“to get in early, get ahead of it”—
	that is, the PIP. However, Department for Work and Pensions statistics show that there was a significant decrease in the number of working-age people—that is, those affected by the changes—getting the benefit, so much so that The Economist said:
	“Over the past few months…questionable numbers have floated out of Iain Duncan Smith’s office into the public debate like raw sewage.”
	Those are the words of The Economist, not mine. Will the Minister take this opportunity to correct the figures on the record, and to resolve to use accurate figures only? As The Economist puts it,
	“they shouldn’t manipulate…and distort”
	figures
	“to tell stories that aren’t actually true.”

Esther McVey: I will put on record that we do use correct figures. We use the right figures, and we make sure that people know exactly what is happening, because that is only right. We are dealing with the most vulnerable people in society, and it is only right that they get the correct information. We will continue doing that.

Jobseeker's Allowance (Claimant Sanctions)

Stephen Hepburn: What assessment he has made of the effect of sanctions on jobseeker’s allowance claimants.

Mark Hoban: Sanctions have played a key role in ensuring that jobseekers meet their commitments to the taxpayer in return for jobseeker’s allowance, and 40% of claimants say that they are more likely to look for work due to the threat of a sanction.

Stephen Hepburn: In my constituency, the number of jobless people chasing each vacancy is more than double the national average, yet my local citizens advice bureau informs me that there has been an increase in the number of people who have been to see it who have been kicked off benefits because of sanctions. When will the Government—more specifically, the Tories—stop demonising the unemployed for not having a job, and when will they stop this relentless war against the poor?

Mark Hoban: I point out to the hon. Gentleman that there are people in his constituency who are paying their taxes and working, and who expect jobseekers to do all they can to look for work, so that they can look after themselves and their families. That is the contract that underpins the welfare state—the contract that the previous Government signed up to; I am surprised that he seems to be backing away from that.

Housing Benefit Cap (Evictions)

Barry Gardiner: What redress is available to tenants whose landlords seek to evict them on the grounds that they are housing benefit recipients subject to the benefits cap.

Iain Duncan Smith: Landlords must support their tenants in maintaining their tenancy. All those affected by the cap have already been contacted, most of them more than a year ago, so tenants uncertain about their situation should have asked for a review by now, to check that they are receiving all the benefits to which they are entitled. The local authority may consider paying
	discretionary housing payments, which we have already given them, in negotiations with the landlord, to find a way to avoid eviction.

Barry Gardiner: The Secretary of State is precisely avoiding the point. He knows very well that landlords are using as an excuse for getting rid of tenants, and as a reason to evict them, the fact that they are on the benefits cap. He said that the benefits cap would be a way of bringing rents down, but it is not; it is a way of evicting tenants who are living on benefits. That is appalling, and he needs to do something about it.

Iain Duncan Smith: On the implementation of the cap, people have had over a year to work on this, and I know that local authorities are working with them; we keep in constant contact with them. We will have given local authorities more than £380 million in discretionary moneys. It is very clear that if the issue is only the cap, there is no requirement for people to be evicted. This is a reality, and authorities must work with them. The hon. Gentleman needs to talk to his party, because it wants to make the cap worse by regionalising it.

Credit Unions

Bob Russell: What steps he is taking to support credit unions.

Iain Duncan Smith: I congratulate my hon. Friend, as I always make a point of doing, on his persistence in supporting credit unions. I know that he is a member of his local one, which has about 300 members. I hope that he will welcome the award of a contract for £38 million to the Association of British Credit Unions Limited, which will help 1 million people, and will act as an alternative to loan sharks and payday loans.

Bob Russell: I thank my right hon. Friend for that helpful answer. I know that he would like to praise the volunteers at Colchester credit union for all they do. Will he discuss with his ministerial colleagues in the Department for Communities and Local Government and the Department for Education the importance of encouraging all of us, particularly children, to undertake regular saving?

Iain Duncan Smith: My hon. Friend is right and his campaigns have helped us shape some of our thinking on that. It is worth noting that for the first time financial education will be on the national curriculum, which is extremely important. Through universal credit we are making available a series of financial planning devices and special bank accounts, so we hope this will drive people in the right direction. The crackdown on payday lenders who abuse their position has already started and is yielding real results.

Disability-related Benefits

Fiona Mactaggart: What assessment he has made of whether people who claim disability-related benefits are also more likely to receive housing benefit; and if he will make a statement.

Esther McVey: As I am sure the hon. Lady knows, there are different types of benefit for disabled people, including disability living allowance, which is paid irrespective of whether the claimant is in work or not, as well as income replacement benefits such as employment and support allowance, so a person could receive ESA and DLA or wages and DLA. Around a third of households in receipt of disability living allowance or attendance allowance also receive support for their housing costs.

Fiona Mactaggart: I have been driven to ask this as an oral question by my being refused a reply to a number of written questions on the grounds that it would cost too much money. I have been able to discover that there are 678,000 housing benefit claimants who are also receiving ESA, so there are at least two thirds of a million disabled people in receipt of housing benefit. In Slough landlords—

Mr Speaker: May we have a question? We must move on.

Fiona Mactaggart: What is the Minister going to do to protect disabled people in private housing when landlords refuse to accept people on housing benefit, which is common in my constituency?

Esther McVey: We have supported people with discretionary housing payments amounting to £360 million. The authorities are working with credible landlords. We are supporting those people. Perhaps the hon. Lady could not get an answer to her question because she was looking for something that was not there.

Topical Questions

William Bain: If he will make a statement on his departmental responsibilities.

Iain Duncan Smith: Today I welcome the step that we are taking to support those suffering from mesothelioma and their families, which is a vast improvement on previous taxpayer-funded schemes. The Mesothelioma Bill will correct the failings of the insurance industry to keep proper records, speeding up tracing and setting up the scheme whereby insurers will make payments to some 300 people a year who cannot trace their past employers’ insurers. The Bill is a laudable and long-overdue step towards redress for sufferers of this terrible disease and I welcome its Second Reading in the other place.

William Bain: Seven weeks in, the true devastating consequences of the bedroom tax are becoming clear: claims for discretionary housing payments up 338% in a month, and in Glasgow rising to 5,500, the highest in the entire country. Is it not the case that the Secretary of State has not provided local councils with the resources they need to deal with a crisis of his making?

Steve Webb: We have substantially increased the budget for discretionary housing payment, so it is not surprising that there is a rising number of people applying for it.
	My officials are in regular contact with Scottish local authorities to look at the issues there, as well as in other parts of the country. We have formal evaluation over the next year and two years, and we are monitoring the situation on the ground to see how these reforms are working.

Jason McCartney: I am proud to have given full-time jobs to two young people who did some short-term work experience in my constituency office. That was work experience, not an internship. What evidence has my hon. Friend that work experience helps people get back into work?

Mark Hoban: An evaluation that we published last year shows that young people who have had work experience have a better chance of getting off benefit and into work. I am grateful to everybody, including my hon. Friend, who makes available work experience places to give young people a chance to get out of unemployment and into employment.

Liam Byrne: Can the Secretary of State give the House his personal forecast for when this year’s allocation for the discretionary housing payment fund will run out?

Iain Duncan Smith: No, because the reality is that we have also said that there is three years’ worth of payments—that is the point of the word “discretionary”, by the way. Local authorities can use the money for precisely the kinds of reasons they want, and their observance is to spend it. We keep it under review, as we have said we will do persistently. I cannot understand the point of the right hon. Gentleman’s question.

Liam Byrne: Let me tell the Secretary of State the point of the question: across the country discretionary housing payment fund money is about to run out. In my home city of Birmingham applications are up five times on last year. That policy means that in places such as the north-east three-bedroom houses are now standing empty because people cannot afford to move in. There are now 53,000 households in our country being put up in temporary accommodation, which is costing the taxpayer billions of pounds. When will he admit the truth: the hated bedroom tax now costs more than it saved? It is time to scrap it, and scrap it for good?

Iain Duncan Smith: Discretionary housing payments are given to councils, as the right hon. Gentleman knows. They set the scheme up. They can top the money up as they wish—[Interruption.] One moment they want discretionary moneys, and the next they do not. That falls into the pattern for the Opposition. When they were in government they lost control of the housing benefit bill, which doubled, and it was due to rise by another £5 billion. Every time they come to the Dispatch Box and oppose what we are doing, it means another spending commitment. They have gone from old Labour to new Labour and now to welfare Labour.

Andrew Jones: What progress has my hon. Friend made on transforming the lives of the most disadvantaged individuals and families in our society?

Mark Hoban: My hon. Friend will recognise that we have seen a big fall in the number of people who are out of work and a reduction in the number of people claiming the main out-of-work benefits. I am confident that our reforms to universal credit will further improve the lives of those who are out of work and those who are on low incomes.

Paul Flynn: For many, retirement is a welcome liberation from demeaning drudgery. For others, it is an unwelcome end to their useful lives, often leading to ill health. What are the Government doing to ensure more choice in the age of retirement?

Steve Webb: One of the measures we implemented early on, and of which I am proudest, was the abolition of forced retirement. The previous Government talked about it a lot, but we abolished it, so people can no longer be forced out of their jobs simply for turning 65. However, there is much more to do. We are working with employers’ groups on attitudes to older workers to encourage them to retain them and enable them to stay in the work force if they wish to do so.

Tim Loughton: Ministers will be aware of the long-overdue changes to shared parenting in the current Children and Families Bill. Will they liaise with their hon. Friends in the Department for Education to ensure that non-resident fathers are not deterred from engaging in their children’s lives as much as possible because of welfare changes that might make it difficult for them to secure appropriate accommodation when their children come to stay?

Iain Duncan Smith: First, may I welcome the fantastic work my hon. Friend did when he was in that job? He is absolutely right, and I will ensure that we liaise with colleagues and make that argument strongly, but it is one that I think they already bear in mind strongly.

Alex Cunningham: I keep hearing of homeless people having particularly difficult and negative experiences of the Work programme. Crisis has told me of a woman who lives in a hostel and has serious mental health problems, some of which relate to being homeless, yet she was referred to a sub-contractor specialising not in mental health, but in learning difficulties, who was obviously no use to her whatsoever. What will the Secretary of State do to sort out the people who are supposed to be offering services and support that are appropriate to people’s needs and end the failure of his Work programme?

Mark Hoban: There are some excellent examples of how the Work programme has worked with people who are homeless and those who have mental health problems. The important thing is to learn from where practice is excellent. We will ensure that that happens and that good practice is shared.

Nigel Mills: Will my hon. Friend please update the House on what recent assessment she has made of the number of Remploy staff who have made it into employment or training?

Esther McVey: As of today, of the 1,100 Remploy staff who have come forward for help, 351 are in work and about the same number are in training. We are working closely with former Remploy staff to ensure that we get this as good as possible. I will also say that when the previous Government closed 29 factories in 2008, absolutely no support or monitoring was put in place, something that this Government have done and got right.

Richard Burden: The Secretary of State and his ministerial colleagues have taken a number of questions on Atos and the work capability assessment, and I think that many people listening to these proceedings would consider their answers relaxed to the point of complacency. Does he recognise that people who have intermittent, real problems with working—people with brain damage and with mental health problems—are not being served properly by the work capability assessment? Does he recognise that this is a problem or not? If he does, what, in practice, is he going to do about it?

Mark Hoban: The hon. Gentleman needs to remember that his party in government introduced the work capability assessment, so Labour Members cannot shirk their responsibilities. Since we came into office we have implemented the findings of Professor Harrington, and the fourth independent report is under way. The proportion of people going into support groups has tripled under this Government. That is a consequence of the reforms that we have introduced to fix a system that the previous Government created.

Guto Bebb: Will the Minister join me in welcoming last week’s figures from the Office for National Statistics showing a fourth consecutive quarter of significant growth in the employment of UK nationals? Will he contrast that performance with the performance of the previous Government between 2004 and 20011, when we saw a significant increase in the employment of non-UK nationals in the economy?

Mark Hoban: The former Prime Minister used to bang on about British jobs for British workers, but in reality the majority of new jobs went to non-UK nationals. We have reversed that trend, and now nine out of 10 new jobs go to UK nationals.

Fiona O'Donnell: A constituent of mine who lives in Haddington was recently asked to attend a tribunal for her disability living allowance in Glasgow, which, because she had to use public transport, would have meant a round trip of six hours. That is not only unacceptable for her but places a strain on welfare rights in my constituency. Does the Minister think that that is acceptable?

Esther McVey: No, I do not think that a round trip of that long is acceptable. I will look into that case.

Simon Hughes: The transition to the personal independence payment is a good thing in theory, but some people are telling me
	that they are concerned that the threshold for qualification is unacceptably high and they feel unsupported in trying to work out how to make a difficult choice among the variety of suppliers available.

Esther McVey: I was not exactly sure where the right hon. Gentleman was going with that question. The PIP was introduced to support the most vulnerable and to make it as easy as possible to do so, and to ensure that people who could not fill in a self-assessment form could see somebody on a one-to-one basis. This is the biggest ever change in welfare. I thank all the people who have helped with it in Jobcentre Pluses, and the stakeholders. Over 1,000 disabled people got involved to make sure that the system was right, and I thank them for making it a good transition to a new benefit.

Mr Speaker: The Minister can always have a cup of tea with her right hon. Friend if any further clarification is required.

Meg Hillier: Many of my constituents rely on the sub-prime lending sector to manage from day to day and to build their credit record. What conversations has the Secretary of State’s Department had with the Financial Conduct Authority in its efforts to improve that sector and to make sure that my constituents get a good service rather than, in some cases, being driven into the hands of illegal moneylenders?

Iain Duncan Smith: That is a very good question. My noble Friend Lord Freud is conducting those discussions, which are in line with all his discussions with the banking and finance sector in advance of universal credit coming in. The hon. Lady makes a very valuable point, and she is absolutely right. I will ensure that we press people very hard on this.

Stephen Barclay: My right hon. Friend will be aware that the Department suffered £1.2 billion of fraud losses last year and recovered just under £50 million. Will he look again at the scope for greater data sharing with the private sector, which is often targeted by the same fraudsters, to see whether risk-averse legal advice within the Department is hampering these recoveries?

Iain Duncan Smith: Yes. When we came into office, the fraud and error in tax credit loan bills stood at some £11.6 billion—money lost by the previous Government. Since then, we have published a new fraud legislative
	strategy, refreshed in February last year, and we are convicting and punishing more people. There were almost 10,000 convictions for benefit fraud in 2011-12, up more than 40% on 2009-10.

Mark Lazarowicz: The Secretary of State blithely told us earlier that if the budget given to local councils for discretionary housing payments runs out, they should just top it up. Where exactly does he think they should get the money from to top up their budgets, and, if he is not prepared to accept the failures of the bedroom tax, why does he not at least agree to top up the budgets himself in order to make up for the deficiencies of his own policy?

Iain Duncan Smith: I have said all along that we will keep this under review and talk to local authorities. The Opposition have not once apologised—they did not do so when in government, either—for the fact that, under them, house building fell to its lowest level since the 1920s and that there was more overcrowding. There are 1.5 million spare rooms and 250,000 people live in overcrowded accommodation. There were record levels under the previous Government. Why do they not say sorry for the mess they left housing in?

Duncan Hames: I know that Ministers want to be on the side of those who work hard to get on, including a constituent of mine—about whom I have written to the employment Minister—who worked hard for many years before undergoing chemotherapy for blood cancer. Two years ago he spent a month between jobs, during which time he chose not to claim benefits, but he has been told by the benefits office that, as a result of this gap in his contribution history, he is not eligible for contributory employment support allowance. Will the Minister meet me so that we can examine this case and try to make sure that rigid bureaucracy does not prevent us from helping people in such situations?

Mark Hoban: I would be happy to meet my hon. Friend to discuss the case in more detail.

Julie Hilling: A recent judgment said that homeless people using night shelters are not eligible for any housing benefit payments. Given that night shelters will not be able to continue without an income from their service users, what action is being taken to address this problem?

Iain Duncan Smith: We are looking at this issue with my noble friend Lord Freud and my right hon. Friends. I will definitely write to the hon. Lady about the outcome.

Syria

William Hague: With permission, Mr Speaker, I will make a statement on the conflict in Syria, which continues to worsen.
	The Syrian regime’s military offensive against opposition-held areas around Damascus, Homs, Idlib, Hama and Aleppo is intensifying, with complete disregard for civilian life. The death toll has doubled in the first five months of this year and now stands at an estimated 80,000 people. There have been well-verified reports of massacres around Damascus by regime security forces, and of communities killed in cold blood in villages around Baniyas. Online footage has shown bodies heaped in the streets and children butchered in their homes. Ten thousand people are believed to have fled the area in the panic created by these brutal killings, and last week there were unconfirmed reports of further attacks using chemical weapons.
	More than 4 million Syrians are internally displaced and a total of 6.8 million are in desperate need, including 3 million children. It is horrifying to imagine what life must be like for these children, witnessing violence and death on a daily basis, and enduring trauma, malnutrition, disease and shattered education.
	This suffering has devastating consequences. It is undoubtedly contributing to a radicalisation in Syria. Syrian people are facing a regime that is using warplanes, helicopters, heavy artillery, tanks, cluster munitions and even ballistic missiles against them, often without them having the means to defend themselves and their communities. The conflict is therefore creating opportunities for extremist groups. Syria is now the No. 1 destination for jihadists anywhere in the world today, including approximately 70 to 100 individuals connected with the United Kingdom.
	The conflict is also endangering regional peace and security, with more than 50 people killed in a bombing in Turkey last week, the kidnapping of United Nations peacekeepers in the Golan Heights, and cross-border shelling and clashes on the Lebanese-Syrian border. Half a million Syrians have become refugees in the past 10 weeks alone, bringing the total number of refugees to 1.5 million, 75% of whom are women and children. The UN assesses that, on these trends, by the end of this year more than 3.5 million, or 15% of Syria’s total population, will have become refuges in other countries. The Foreign Minister of Jordan has warned that Syrian refugees are likely to make up 40% of his country’s population by the middle of next year, with similar numbers predicted for Lebanon.
	One of two scenarios lies ahead for Syria. On the one hand, there could be an ever more savage conflict and military stalemate, producing an even bigger humanitarian disaster, greater radicalisation and deeper sectarian divisions, further massacres, and even the collapse of the Syrian state and disintegration of its territory. On the other hand—and this is what we must strive for—there could be a negotiated end to the conflict that ends the bloodshed and leads to a new transitional Government, enabling refugees to return to their homes and extremism to be contained.
	All the efforts of the United Kingdom are devoted to bringing about such a political settlement and to saving lives. We have provided more than £12 million in non-lethal assistance, including to the Syrian National Coalition. That includes vehicles with ballistic protection, body armour, trucks and forklifts, solar power generators, water purification kits, equipment to search for survivors in the aftermath of shelling, computers, satellite phones, and office equipment to help people in opposition-held areas.
	We have provided human rights training and support to members of Syrian civil society. We have supported human rights investigation teams to collect documentary, photographic and interview evidence of abuses, and trained medical staff to gather forensic evidence of torture and sexual violence. That material is being made available to the UN commission of inquiry and other international investigative bodies so that those involved in human rights violations can be held to account. We therefore welcome the resolution sponsored by Qatar, which was adopted by the UN General Assembly on 15 May by 107 votes to 12, urging accountability for human rights violations and progress on a political transition, as well as humanitarian assistance to Syria.
	The Prime Minister announced last week that we would double our non-lethal assistance this year to £20 million. That will be used to provide services to the Syrian people, deliver assistance to them on the ground, forge links between different communities and opposition groups, and support better communications.
	Our humanitarian funding to date totals £171.1 million. That includes £30 million, which was also announced by the Prime Minister last week, to support people in need in opposition-held and contested areas in Syria. Much of our funding is going to support refugees in Lebanon and Jordan. We have provided food for more than 150,000 people, clean drinking water for more than 900,000 people and more than 280,000 medical consultations for the sick and injured. The Government have worked hard to urge other countries to meet their commitments to the UN humanitarian appeal for $1.5 billion. That is now 71% funded and we will continue to urge other countries to do more.
	We are increasing the support that we are providing to Syria’s neighbours. We are providing equipment to the Jordanian armed forces to help them deal with the immediate needs of Syrian refugees at the border and transport them safely to international humanitarian organisations. We have provided funding to the Lebanese armed forces for four border observation towers to help reduce cross-border violence in key areas and to protect and reassure local communities. We are also working with the Syrian National Coalition and key international supporters to develop plans for transition and Syria’s post-conflict needs, building on the conference that we held at Wilton Park in January.
	The international focus must above all be on ending the crisis. To that end, we are stepping up our efforts to support the opposition and increase pressure on the regime in order to create the conditions for a political transition. On 20 April, I attended the meeting of the core group of the Friends of the Syrian People in Istanbul, where a new compact was agreed with the Syrian National Coalition. The coalition issued a declaration committing itself to a political solution and transition, promising to guarantee the rights of all
	Syria’s communities, and rejecting terrorism and extremist ideology. It pledged to preserve the Syrian state, uphold international law, guarantee the safety and security of chemical weapons, and work to keep weapons out of the hands of extremist groups—commitments which I am sure the whole House will welcome. In return, the core group nations agreed to expand support to the coalition and its military council, as the United Kingdom already has done. As I speak, we are working to broaden and unify further the Syrian opposition.
	On 8 May in Moscow, Secretary Kerry and Foreign Minister Lavrov agreed the basis for a new international conference to bring together representatives of the regime and the opposition. The Prime Minister visited Russia on 10 May for talks with President Putin to cement understanding of the purpose of the conference. He held further talks with President Obama in Washington on 13 May and spoke again to President Putin last Friday. In our view, the conference, which should be held as soon as possible, should focus on agreeing a transitional governing body with full executive powers and formed by mutual consent, building on the agreement that we reached at Geneva last year.
	We are urging the regime and the opposition to attend the conference and to take full advantage of the opportunity to negotiate. In the end there will have to be a political and diplomatically supported solution, if there is to be any solution at all. There is no purely military victory available to either side without even greater loss of life, the growth of international terrorism, and grave threats to neighbouring countries.
	The Prime Minister and I have both spoken to UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon about the conference, and we continue to support special envoy Lakhdar Brahimi in his role. I am in constant contact with Secretary Kerry about the preparations. Tomorrow I will travel to Jordan to meet him and other Foreign Ministers of the core group on Wednesday, and on Monday I will go to Brussels for the EU Foreign Affairs Council on this subject. The EU should give strong support to this diplomatic process, including by agreeing further amendments to the arms embargo, without taking any decisions at present to send arms to the Syrian opposition.
	The case for further amendments to the EU arms embargo on Syria is compelling, in order to increase the pressure on the regime and give us the flexibility to respond to continued radicalisation and conflict. We have to be open to every way of strengthening moderates and saving lives, rather than the current trajectory of extremism and murder. We have not sent arms to any side during the conflicts of the Arab spring. No decision has been made to go down that route, and if we were to pursue this, it would be under the following conditions: in co-ordination with other nations; in carefully controlled circumstances; and in accordance with our obligations under national and international law. The United Kingdom and France are both strongly of the view that changes to the embargo are not separate from the diplomatic work, but essential to it. We must make it clear that if the regime does not negotiate seriously at the Geneva conference, no option is off the table.
	There remains a serious risk that the Assad regime will not negotiate seriously. That is the lesson of the last two years, in which the regime has shown that it is prepared to countenance any level of loss of life in
	Syria for as long as it hopes it can win militarily. We also have to persuade the opposition to come to the table, recognising how difficult it is for them to enter into negotiations with a regime engaged in butchering thousands of people.
	There is a growing body of limited but persuasive information showing that the regime used—and continues to use—chemical weapons. We have physiological samples from inside Syria that have shown the use of sarin, although they do not indicate the scale of that use. Our assessment is that the use of chemical weapons in Syria is very likely to have been by the regime. We have no evidence to date of opposition use. We welcome the UN investigation, which in our view must cover all credible allegations and have access to all relevant sites in Syria. We continue to assist the investigation team and to work with our allies to get more and better information about these allegations.
	The United Kingdom holds the presidency of the UN Security Council next month, and we remain in favour of the Security Council putting its full weight behind a transition plan if it can be agreed. All our efforts are directed at ensuring that the coming conference in Geneva has the greatest possible chance of success. We are entering in the coming weeks into a period of the most intense diplomacy yet, to bring together permanent members of the UN Security Council, to attempt to create real negotiations, and to open up the possibility of a political solution. The Prime Minister is fully committed personally to those efforts, and the central role of the Foreign Office over the coming weeks will be to support that process. At the same time, our work to save lives, to help stabilise neighbouring countries, and to support the national coalition inside Syria will continue to be stepped up.
	With every week that passes we are coming closer to the collapse of Syria and a regional catastrophe, with the lives of tens of thousands more Syrians at stake. We are determined to make every effort to end the carnage, to minimise the risks to the region, and to protect the security of the United Kingdom.

Douglas Alexander: I thank the Foreign Secretary for coming to the House and giving his statement, and for advance sight of that statement. We have all watched events unfold in Syria with increasing horror, yet the whole House has not had the opportunity to discuss the conflict in Syria for some weeks.
	Let me begin my questions with the key issue of arming the rebels, which in recent months the Prime Minister has suggested is key to “tipping the balance” and creating peace in Syria. Indeed, in his statement today the Foreign Secretary added: “The case for further amendments to the EU arms embargo on Syria is compelling, in order to increase the pressure on the regime and give us the flexibility to respond to continued radicalisation and conflict. We have to be open to every way of strengthening moderates and saving lives”. This signal should not surprise us. Indeed, in recent weeks, there have been newspaper reports of a confidential document that sets out a range of options that would allow the UK to send lethal support to Syria’s opposition. The Foreign Secretary has again chosen his words carefully today, but I believe that the risk of a decade-long
	sectarian civil war in Syria, fuelled in part by weapons supplied by the UK, should give him serious pause for thought before embracing that course.
	The struggle in Syria today is between forces funded and armed by outside sponsors, notably Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Iran. Also participating are foreign religious groups that are not directly controlled by their sponsors, namely the Sunni Salafist and Iranian-aligned militias, together with intensely anti-western al-Qaeda fighters. I would therefore be grateful if the Foreign Secretary addressed himself to this point: if, as he states, his priority is a negotiated end to the conflict, is contemplating arming the rebels the crucial question? Surely the crucial question is how to create a sustainable political settlement in a complicated and fractured country. The conflict is so vicious today in part because the stakes are so high for each of the communities involved. Does the Foreign Secretary accept that Syria is awash with weaponry? What is his assessment of how much weaponry would be required to tip the balance against Assad, and how, in practical terms, will the Foreign Secretary ensure that weapons supplied do not fall into the arms of al-Qaeda-supporting jihadists?
	The choice for the international community is not between sending military support to Syria’s opposition and doing nothing at all. Assad is sustained by external support from Russia and Iran and the foreign cash that allows him still to pay his forces. Will the Foreign Secretary explain why he did not place more emphasis in his statement on the practical steps that could be taken to choke off Assad’s finances and the country’s energy supplies through effective enforcement of sanctions? Any future actions or policies of the UK Government should be adopted only on the basis of their capacity to contribute to a peaceful outcome.
	I agree with the Government that they should seize the opportunity afforded by the proposed US-Russia conference to try to end the fighting and prevent the Lebanonisation of Syria. That is exactly the type of engagement with the Russians that the Opposition have urged for many months, as the Foreign Secretary will recollect.
	Syria has experienced minority rule for 40 years, so any comprehensive peace settlement for Syria must, by its nature, be inclusive. It would be wrong to underestimate the fear, particularly in the Alawite community, that a change from minority rule to democracy provokes. Will the Foreign Secretary therefore assure the House that that is the approach he will advocate in Jordan tomorrow and in his further discussions ahead of the conference?
	In conclusion, we have learnt from recent history that when a country with such a range of religious and ethnic identities emerges from a bloody war, communities are slow to trust one another again. Will the Foreign Secretary explain the Government’s assessment of the scale of post-conflict planning currently under way by the international community? What role are the UK Government playing in facilitating that?
	The Opposition strongly support and welcome the Government’s humanitarian funding for the Syrian people, but does the Secretary of State accept that Britain alone cannot take on the burden of upscaling the humanitarian response in Syria in the wake of any peace agreement, which all hon. Members wish to see? It is therefore vital
	that he delivers on the pledge he made at the G8 Foreign Ministers meeting, which he chaired: he said that his immediate priority was
	“ensuring that donors who generously pledged their support at the Kuwait conference fulfil their commitments”.
	How will he ensure that that all those commitments are indeed turned into payments to help to rebuild Syria?
	There is common ground between the Government and Opposition on supporting humanitarian efforts to assist the people of Syria; supporting the work of the human rights observers; supporting UN investigations into the use of chemical weapons; and encouraging a diplomatic resolution to this continuing conflict. However, if the Government wish to take the step of arming the rebels, I ask and urge the Foreign Secretary to come back to the House before that decision is made and make the Government’s case to Members on both sides of the House who, along with the President of the United States, continue to have concerns about the wisdom of that proposed course of action.

William Hague: I am grateful, as always, to the right hon. Gentleman. While there are some differences—I will reply to his questions—there is also a great deal in common across the House. As he knows, I regularly come back to the House whenever there is the slightest variation in the situation, so if there are any developments in the Government’s policy I would certainly seek to do so. He said that we had not had the opportunity to discuss this matter for a while. I must just make the observation that, most unusually, the Opposition chose not to devote any day of the debate on the Queen’s Speech to foreign affairs. We could have discussed Syria and all other issues at great length. That was a mysterious decision and I do not want to speculate on the reasons for it, but the opportunity was there.
	There is a lot of agreement on many issues. The right hon. Gentleman asked about humanitarian support. Since the G8 Foreign Ministers meeting, far more countries have supplied the funding they committed to at Kuwait. As I mentioned in my statement, the UN appeal for $1.5 billion is now 71% funded. However, that was an appeal to cover the period from January to June. We have to expect, in the near future, a new UN assessment of the humanitarian aid that will be required, which could be well above the previous appeal of $1.5 billion. This is already the biggest ever UN humanitarian appeal, demonstrating the scale of what we are dealing with. I pay tribute to my colleagues in the Department for International Development—the Minister of State is here—for all their efforts to get other countries to meet their commitments, as we in the UK have.
	The right hon. Gentleman asked about post-conflict planning. We have led the way internationally, with the conference earlier this year at Wilton Park. Understandably, many minds in the opposition, and in the regime for that matter, are turned to the conflict rather than post-conflict planning. It would be good if all sides could spend more time on post-conflict planning, but we continue to give advice and discuss the matter with our partners on the Security Council. It may well be that we will hold other events ourselves to ensure that that planning exists.
	I agree with the right hon. Gentleman about the need for a political settlement to be inclusive—that is absolutely critical. The compact we made with the National Coalition
	at our Istanbul meeting includes a clear commitment to a democratic and non-sectarian Syria; a Syria without retribution, other than against those who have committed war crimes; and a Syria in which the institutions of the state are not dismantled. The Syrian National Coalition is concerned to learn lessons from Iraq, where too many institutions of the state were dismantled. On all those points, I think I can entirely satisfy him and be in accord with him.
	The right hon. Gentleman was, however, going too far to suggest that there is somehow an alternative policy by which sanctions could be better enforced. The European Union enforces its sanctions tightly, but the House must remember that the EU is alone in the world, as a grouping, in enforcing sanctions. The United States and some of the other Arab states enforce sanctions on Syria, but there are no UN sanctions of that kind, and there are routes around such sanctions over time. It is not within the power of the EU to change that; it is within the power of the UN Security Council, but Russia and China have never supported resolutions on that subject, so that is not an available alternative policy.
	I did indeed choose my words carefully on the question of arms. We are seeking amendments to the embargo, not to immediately use those amendments. In the discussions we have in the EU in the coming week, we think is very important in making the Geneva negotiations take place, let alone be a success. We need more pressure on the regime. We need more encouragement to the opposition that they will not for ever have to endure, if all negotiations fail and there is no way forward, people—who may be described as rebels, but are men, women and children sitting in their communities—suffering virtually every kind of weapon that man has ever invented being dropped on them while most of the world denies them the means to defend themselves. If we come to a choice about that, it is a very important foreign policy and moral choice, which of course should be discussed fully in this House. It is a very important choice indeed. We have to bear it in mind, however, that one of the drivers of radicalisation is the availability of weapons to extremist groups and to the regime, but often not to moderate opposition groups. Of course there are legitimate differences over all such issues, and it would be a very difficult foreign policy choice. We are clear that we need amendments to the arms embargo to take EU policy in the right direction, which is what I will be working for over the coming week.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr Speaker: Order. A great many right hon. and hon. Members are seeking to catch my eye, but I remind the House that the business to follow, on the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Bill, is also of intense interest to right hon. and hon. Members in all parts of the House, and it is my duty, as best I can, to protect time for debate on it. I therefore issue my usual appeal to Members to offer the House single, short, supplementary questions, without preamble, and to the Foreign Secretary, as ever, to provide us with his pithy replies.

Malcolm Rifkind: I soberly disagree with the shadow Foreign Secretary in his opposition to military support for the Syrian National Coalition. What incentive does President Assad have to use a
	forthcoming conference to seek a political solution, when he continues to receive weapons of all descriptions from Russia and Iran? I know that my right hon. Friend has slowly and reluctantly come to the view that military support may be necessary. I strongly commend that conclusion and urge him to do what he can—in the cautious manner I know he will adopt—to ensure that the civilian communities in Syria are protected from the merciless onslaught from the present Syrian Government.

William Hague: As he has done consistently over a long time, my right hon. and learned Friend argues the case from the other perspective. As I said, this would be an important foreign policy decision and moral choice. We certainly need to apply additional pressure on the regime in order to make for a successful negotiation, because without that pressure the regime might well believe that it can sit tight for much longer yet, even with a collapsing society and economy underneath it. I think he puts the case very well.

Jack Straw: I entirely understand the frustration about the situation—we all share it—but if the arms embargo is lifted, is there not a risk that it could just lead to an escalating arms race between the west and Russia and Iran, whose interest in the conflict is as existential as Assad’s?

William Hague: There are no options here without risks. There are risks with every possible course of action, and of course there is evidence of large flows of weapons into Syria from Russia and Iran taking place now. That is part of what is radicalising some communities in Syria. I do not want to pretend to the House that there is any option without risks. We must do everything to ensure that these negotiations succeed, but we will have to weigh fully the risk of people indefinitely having every weapon devised by man used against them without the means to defend themselves. We will have to weigh the risk of what that might do for the creation of extremist groups and the permanent destabilisation of the entire region. It is a choice between risks.

John Redwood: What is the current balance of strength between moderate, democratic forces and undemocratic, violent, extreme forces within the opposition? We do not want to help the latter.

William Hague: I cannot give my right hon. Friend a precise percentage—obviously such a thing does not exist—but from everything that can be gathered and ascertained, the great majority of opposition fighters and supporters support the National Coalition or groups affiliated to it. That coalition is committed to a democratic, non-sectarian future for Syria, but the extremist groups are undoubtedly growing in strength. I would argue that one reason for that is that somebody who wants to join an extremist group can get a rifle and training immediately, whereas those who go to support a moderate group cannot. We have to bear that in mind in the debate we have started to have in the House.

Bob Ainsworth: The Foreign Secretary does not appear to deny that the provision of lethal aid to the opposition would be a huge thing to do in such a complicated situation as
	Syria. Is he guaranteeing to the House—because many of us are really worried about this—that he will return here for a decision before that line is crossed?

William Hague: As I said to the shadow Foreign Secretary, I return to the House whenever there is a major development or change in Government policy. In all my time in government, I have never been one to try to deny the House an opportunity to make a decision about something.

Richard Ottaway: If the Foreign Secretary cannot get agreement from his fellow EU member states to amend the arms embargo, will he veto its renewal?

William Hague: My hon. Friend will understand that negotiations with other EU states about the arms embargo are going on now, and there are different forms of amending it. We will meet as Foreign Ministers in Brussels next Monday to look at those discussions in detail. I can say to my hon. Friend that we are prepared to do that if necessary, but of course we are looking for agreement with other EU member states.

Peter Hain: Surely the right hon. Gentleman accepts that his remorseless drive towards British military intervention through supplying arms—because that is what it is—will make the civil war even worse. Having said that, I welcome his commitment to a negotiated solution, although the only way it has a chance of succeeding is by not maintaining the precondition that Assad must go. Of course we all want to see an end to his barbarous rule, but so long as the precondition that he must go is maintained, the conference will never get off the ground.

William Hague: If is of course our opinion—I suspect it is the opinion of everyone in the House—that Assad should go, but we are not producing any new precondition for the conference or recommending that anybody else should do so. Our starting point for the conference is the outcome of last year’s Geneva conference, which agreed that there should be a transitional Government with full Executive powers formed by mutual consent—that the regime and opposition should each be content with those forming that transitional Government. It would be wrong to retreat from what was agreed last year—that is the only basis for peace and democracy in Syria—and we are not adding any further precondition to that.

Julian Lewis: Although historical analogies are dangerous, I fear that if we were in 1917 now, the Government would be advocating backing the Russian revolution on the basis that the Mensheviks might come out on top and not the Bolsheviks. Is it not a fact that thousands of al-Qaeda fighters are fighting in order to overthrow Assad? If they get their hands on his chemical weapons stocks, woe betide us in the west.

William Hague: My hon. Friend is quite right about the importance of extremist groups not getting their hands on chemical weapons stocks. That is one reason for strengthening more moderate groups in Syria, rather than letting the extremists gain greater strength, which
	is what is happening on the current trajectory. I will not follow him into all his historical analogies, but he will be well aware that Winston Churchill pretty much pursued the policy he was just talking about.

Caroline Lucas: Given the accelerating humanitarian crisis in Syria, the Foreign Secretary will know that Oxfam and other humanitarian organisations are warning not only of the importance of diplomacy, but about the amount of weapons going into the country. Will he give serious consideration to the fact that if the embargo is lifted and more weapons go in, it will be akin to pouring petrol on a fire?

William Hague: Of course I always take very seriously what is said by Oxfam and other NGOs. We will all have to weigh heavily all the different sides of the argument, but we must bear it in mind that, as things stand, people who have done nothing wrong—except to want dignity for their country and freedom for themselves—are being butchered. We must bear in mind what that does to their political opinions and whether that is acceptable, to us in the western world or to any part of the world. We will have to make our choice about that.

Martin Horwood: I welcome the Foreign Secretary’s remarks, including those relating to the EU arms embargo. Does he agree that the negotiated political solution that we all want would become less likely if either the murderous Assad regime or the extremist jihadi militants believe that they can defeat those fighting for democracy and win by force and terror alone?

William Hague: My hon. Friend is absolutely spot on. That is absolutely right, which is why, in everything we are doing to send help into Syria and to deliver humanitarian assistance, we are trying to bolster the more moderate opposition forces with the practical help that we have given so far. Otherwise, it will become a contest between a murdering criminal regime on the one hand and the extremists on the other. That would be the worst situation of all for the world to be left in.

David Winnick: The brutality of the regime is hardly in question, but have not both sides committed terrible war crimes against humanity? Why should the House believe that the sending of arms to the rebels will help to resolve this terrible conflict, rather than escalating it?

William Hague: As the hon. Gentleman will know, having listened to my statement, I am not asking this country to make that choice at the moment. We are talking about amending the arms embargo. He is quite right to say that crimes have been committed by both sides. He should also know that the military and civilian leadership of the National Coalition have expressed their utter horror at such things, and that they are doing their utmost to ensure that they are not done in their name. We can all understand, in a country with so many different groups fighting in such a disparate way, that extremist groups and others do things that are not within the control of those commanders. The United Kingdom is resolutely against any such crimes and wants the perpetrators to be held to account, whether they are in the Government or the opposition.

Crispin Blunt: I welcome the fact that the Secretary of State has made crystal clear the catastrophic consequences of a failure to deliver a negotiated settlement. I also welcome the recognition of the fact, ugly or otherwise, that the Russians are absolutely central to the process and are now being seriously engaged. Given that both sides in the conflict are increasingly steeped in blood, and that many players on both sides are guilty of war crimes, does my right hon. Friend agree that we might need to be flexible on the question of retribution for such crimes if we are to deliver a settlement that will take Syria out of this wretched crisis?

William Hague: I hope that such judgments will be a matter for the Syrian people in their own state and through their own judicial system. I know that that seems a long way away today, but I hope that that will be the way forward. It will also be open to a future Syrian Government to refer their own country to the International Criminal Court. These matters must be dealt with through the proper processes and I do not want to speculate about how many people have committed war crimes, but, on the regime side at least, it will be a very large number.

Gisela Stuart: If it is important not to dismantle the institutions of the state, is anyone talking to the Alawites to see what a post-Assad Syria would look like?

William Hague: That is partly the purpose of the negotiations. We want the regime and the opposition to engage in serious negotiations about how a transitional Government would work. The National Coalition has set out its commitment to a non-sectarian Syria, which would include the role of the Alawites. We do not have any such vision from the regime, because it has not set out a vision other than one in which President Assad stays in power and negotiations take place only with the tamer elements of the opposition. I hope that the negotiations are sufficiently successful that they get into the matter of the nature of a Syria after transition.

John Baron: No option is without risk, but given the west’s poor track record of arming groups and individuals—the mujaheddin and Saddam Hussein, for example—and given that certain rebel groups are allying themselves to al-Qaeda, will the Foreign Secretary answer the one question that he has so far failed to answer? How would he prevent the arms that are being poured into the area from getting into the wrong hands?

William Hague: My hon. Friend is getting ahead of where we have reached in our policy making. We could supply arms only in carefully controlled circumstances, and with very clear commitments from the opposition side. I cannot at this stage go into what arrangements could be made—some of them would necessarily be confidential—but we would want to be able to assure the House and the country that we had confidence in any such arrangements. That is a subject that we might have to return to.

Mike Gapes: The Foreign Secretary said that he was in constant contact with US Secretary of State John Kerry. As a result of those
	constant contacts, is he in any position to ascertain exactly the US Administration’s position? Why have they failed to act on President Obama’s so-called red line? Does the US support arming of the rebels or will it consider a no-fly zone?

William Hague: There is no mystery about the position of the United States. In public as well as in private, the US is driving the initiative put together with Russia on 8 May to have the Geneva conference. Secretary Kerry is therefore working very hard on the diplomatic side of all this work. The US is very sympathetic to any means of putting greater pressure on the regime ahead of the conference, including the European Union matters I have been talking about, while fully recognising that it is for EU states to decide on that. It is the view in America, as it is our view, that it is important for the facts on chemical weapons to be established in the eyes of the world. We have sent our evidence to the UN team, and particularly after what happened in the last decade it is important for our claims about the existence or misuse of weapons to be established, preferably by the United Nations.

Penny Mordaunt: What discussions has the Foreign Secretary had with the United Arab Emirates regarding its funding of decent facilities and medical care for Syrian refugees in Jordan, and the contribution that it has made to the humanitarian effort to date?

William Hague: The UAE makes a big contribution. I have had many discussions with the UAE Foreign Minister and will do so again in Jordan this year. It has given substantial assistance—I do not have the figures with me and it does not necessarily publish all the figures—to setting up humanitarian camps, including in Jordan. We encourage it, as we do all other countries, to increase such work.

Mark Hendrick: What leads the Foreign Secretary to believe that the commitments made by members of the Syrian National Coalition in the compact are worth the paper they are written on?

William Hague: I suppose that one could ask that question about almost any statement by most opposition groups in many parts of the world, or indeed by many Governments in many parts of the world. It is our view, as Foreign Ministers of the core group, that the Syrian National Coalition is sincere in its commitments, which is based on our knowing the people involved over some months and seeing how the opposition has developed. They know that the commitments are very important to their future success and they have discussed them at great length. They contain and comprise a steadily broadening group of people of different ethnicities, origins and professions. I believe the sincerity of the commitments, but I also believe that the coalition is worried about the growth of extremist groups and knows that support would be lost over time unless it gets enough support from the rest of the world.

Ben Wallace: Across the middle east, Shi’as are becoming increasingly targeted by Sunni extremists, and it is partly for that reason that Iran is backing the regime and indeed the
	Alawite community. If the Foreign Secretary is genuinely serious about trying to resolve at an international conference a political and diplomatic-supported solution, will he perhaps entertain the prospect of allowing Iran to contribute to that conference, which is also the wish of Russia?

William Hague: Iran did not attend the previous conference in Geneva and our baseline or starting assumption—although this is a matter for all the nations involved—is that the next Geneva conference should involve the same group of nations. Of course, that does not exclude creating mechanisms to consult other nations that are not at the conference. Iran has many motives, which are perhaps more complex and substantial than those my hon. Friend mentions, and it certainly plays a major role in bolstering the Assad regime. It was not our view at the time of the previous Geneva conference that Iran’s presence would be conducive to reaching any agreement on anything or any solution at all, and therefore we were not in favour of including Iran at the first Geneva conference. These matters are for discussion with all the nations involved.

Jeremy Corbyn: The Foreign Secretary gave a rather disappointing answer to the last question. Clearly, if the humanitarian crisis and all the killing are to end, there must be a political solution; and a political solution must involve all the countries, all of which have complex demands and aims, including Iran. May I ask the Foreign Secretary to be much more specific? What contact is he having with the Iranian Government, and what preparations are being made to include them seriously in any conference on the future of Syria?

William Hague: The hon. Gentleman is entirely entitled to be disappointed with my previous answer, but it was my answer. Let me put it differently. I doubt whether, if Iran had been represented at the Geneva conference last year, we would have reached agreement even on the step of being in favour of a transitional Government formed by mutual consent. At least the permanent members of the Security Council and the other nations present were able to agree on that at last year’s conference, but I am sceptical about whether we would have agreed on it if Iran had been in the room.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: If weekend reports are correct, the Russians have beefed up their fleet in the Mediterranean and supplied anti-ship weapons. Does that not mean that they are upping the ante? Has my right hon. Friend any cause for optimism that if the Russians turn up to the next peace conference, they will negotiate in any meaningful manner?

William Hague: I think that we have to try, although my hon. Friend’s question is entirely valid. Of course we disapprove strongly of continued arms sales to the regime. Those arms are being used by the regime in the present conflict, and there has been the recent announcement about anti-ship missiles. I do not think that that helps in the present circumstances. At the same time, we must work with Russia, which is a partner on the United Nations Security Council. As time has shown,
	we cannot pass any resolution on this subject without working with Russia. Therefore, rather than expressing optimism or pessimism, I say that we must do our utmost to succeed—to have a successful negotiation—and must create all possible conditions to allow it to be successful. The first of those conditions was agreeing with Russia on holding the negotiation; now we must try to make it a success.

Pat McFadden: The scale of the suffering outlined in the Foreign Secretary’s statement is truly appalling. May I ask him to say a little more about the evidence of the regime’s use of chemical weapons, and about the impact that that evidence is having on discussions about possible arms supplies to the opposition, both within Europe and with the United States?

William Hague: As I said in my statement, we have some credible evidence about the use of chemical weapons, particularly sarin; but, as I also said in my statement, that does not give us evidence about the scale of use. There are a number of reports and accounts, and in some cases there is actual physical evidence, of the use of chemical weapons on a small, localised scale, which could easily mean that the regime is testing how the world will react. The use of such weapons is, of course, totally unacceptable on any scale, but, in our view, that is the pattern that is emerging.
	What is important now is for the United Nations investigation for which we called, and which is being mounted by the UN, to have access to all the relevant sites, but so far the regime has denied it access. That is a rather telling point in itself. Of course, the regime’s preparedness to use any weapons at all against the people of its own country should affect the debate that we have about how we are to help those people.

Paul Maynard: What discussions has the Foreign Secretary had with his Russian counterpart about the status of the port of Tartus, and about the alleged presence of tens of thousands of Russians in Syria today?

William Hague: I have had many discussions with my Russian counterpart about all the issues concerning Syria. We are not denying Russia’s relationship with Syria in any way. Indeed, we think that whatever that relationship is, it would be best preserved by a peace settlement in Syria, and we are happy for Russia to take the credit for that if it plays a constructive and leading role. We are not saying that Russia is not entitled to be in Syria, and we are not calling on any future Government of Syria not to allow any Russian presence or port facilities. While my hon. Friend is quite right to refer to the issue, it does not constitute an obstacle to our efforts to work with Russia on a negotiated settlement.

Fiona O'Donnell: The Secretary of State told us that evidence has already been gathered of crimes of sexual violence. How will his preventing sexual violence initiative ensure that those guilty of those vile crimes are brought to justice, and what expertise is there in the PSVI in order to support children to access justice?

William Hague: I am grateful for that question. The hon. Lady knows that one of the first deployments of a team of experts on preventing sexual violence has been to the Syrian borders, in order to gather evidence about these crimes, and to make it easier for others to do so. It is the gathering of evidence that is always very difficult in these situations. I anticipate that there will be many further deployments throughout this year, including to the Syrian border. That expertise also helps to address issues of violence against children, which is all too common. I will keep the House regularly updated on this.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr Speaker: Order. I would like to move on at 4.30 pm, preferably—if at all possible—having accommodated everyone, so that is the bar for Members and the Foreign Secretary.

Brooks Newmark: I have listened very carefully to what the Foreign Secretary has said, and I shall try to throw him another lifeline regarding Iran. Given that Iran is supplying arms, money, men and intelligence, does he agree that the elections in Iran in four weeks’ time, after which Mr Ahmadinejad will no longer be in place, may present an opportunity for us to press the reset button in our relations with Iran?

William Hague: I will give very short answers from now on, following your injunction, Mr Speaker. We must always have hope about elections in other countries, but I am not over-optimistic, let us say, about a major change on this issue, although we are open, of course, to an improvement in our relations with Iran in the right circumstances.

Mark Lazarowicz: The opposition in Syria is clearly already being supplied with, and is obtaining, arms from outside the country, which implies that to make a difference in the balance between the opposition and the regime there will have to be a qualitative and quantitative increase, or change, in the type of supplies being provided to them from outside. Does that not run the risk of creating the very spiral of violence and further aggression and conflict about which those on both sides of this House are clearly so concerned?

William Hague: Those decisions are for the future. As I said earlier, there are risks in any course of action or inaction on this issue, but that is a decision for the future. All we are deciding at present in the European Union are the terms of the arms embargo.

Julian Brazier: In welcoming my right hon. Friend’s remarks on assisting refugees and fragile neighbouring states, may I suggest that the enormous growth of the terrible refugee camps is providing a breeding ground for al-Qaeda, and that it is in our western interests, as well as a demand of humanitarianism, to squeeze the wealthy local countries to do more to help these people?

William Hague: Since I and my colleagues at the Department for International Development try to do that diplomatically, we do not normally express it as squeezing the wealthy
	countries. We have subtler ways of putting it, but I know what my hon. Friend means, and we are engaged in that.

Richard Burden: It is absolutely understandable that most of the questions have concentrated on the agonising choices that the Foreign Secretary has had to make, but may I press him a little further on humanitarian intervention, and in particular on non-governmental organisations seeking much clearer action to secure humanitarian access to the 4.25 million people displaced inside Syria? What further information can the Foreign Secretary give us on that?

William Hague: There are many diplomatic moves on that, including the resolution that was carried in the United Nations General Assembly. We continue to appeal at all times for that access. This could, of course, be one of the angles explored at the Geneva conference, since it should be something on which all sides can agree, but so far the regime has proved very resistant to allowing international NGOs, for instance, uninhibited access to the areas where that is needed.

Phillip Lee: Britain bears a heavy responsibility for the drawing of the current boundaries across the Levant, many of which did not respect traditional tribal boundaries. To what extent does the Foreign Secretary share my concerns about the potential for an overspill from the Syrian crisis across these fluid borders, especially into Jordan and Saudi Arabia?

William Hague: I share those concerns very much indeed, and that is why we are giving the assistance to Lebanon and Jordan to which I referred in my statement. I shall discuss the issue further with the Foreign Minister of Jordan on my visit there on Wednesday.

Jim Shannon: The reluctance of the Christian minority to support the Assad regime or the opposition coalition has led to reports filtering back that that minority is being denied humanitarian aid. Will the Foreign Secretary give the House an assurance that that matter will be looked into and that the Christian minority will have access to the £171.1 million of humanitarian aid that he said was available?

William Hague: Yes. As I mentioned, £30 million of that assistance is for communities inside Syria, if we, NGOs and others can get it to them—that concern is partly to do with the issue about which we were talking a moment ago. We absolutely want to get the assistance to all concerned and we will raise that point at the forthcoming conference.

Henry Smith: Given our upcoming presidency of the UN Security Council, what discussions have been had about the option of a no-fly zone over Syria?

William Hague: There is no agreement in the UN Security Council on those options. My hon. Friend knows that Russia and China have vetoed much less radical resolutions and an effort at the UN to introduce a no-fly zone would meet the same vetoes. It must also be said that
	the great majority of the weaponry being used against the people of Syria is not delivered from the air, so there are fundamental problems with such a proposition.

Jonathan Reynolds: It is clear that there are no good options in Syria, and only a series of bad ones, including doing nothing, which will have consequences in itself. If we are asked to lift the EU arms embargo, will the Foreign Secretary be able to give us any reassurances about the future end use of those weapons or will it simply be a leap in the dark?

William Hague: I hope that I covered that point earlier, and we will not do anything that is a leap in the dark. The choice must be made based on the balance of risks, but I can assure the hon. Gentleman that I will not stand at the Dispatch Box and ask the House to undertake a complete leap in the dark.

Rehman Chishti: Senator Kerry has said that President Assad cannot be part of any transitional Government. Does the Secretary of State agree with that view and will he clarify the Russian view on that statement?

William Hague: My view, like Secretary Kerry’s, is that Assad should have left long ago in order to save lives in his own country. The terms that we are working on, from Geneva last year, are that a transitional Government should be formed by mutual consent. Of course, mutual consent between the opposition and the regime is unlikely to include opposition consent for President Assad to be a feature of an Administration.

Paul Flynn: Was the intervention by Israel helpful?

William Hague: I could of course give a long answer to that question, but I would be disobeying your request, Mr Speaker. I have always taken the position that all countries in the region are entitled to protect their national security. That applies to Israel as well and of course it is very important for those who have weapons in the region not to transfer them to Hezbollah or other groups that will misuse them in further conflicts.

Tim Loughton: I have visited Syria twice and on the last occasion met President Assad, and it is quite clear that he does not necessarily run the country—rather, it is run by a shadowy regime of military and Assad family members. May I gently suggest to the Foreign Secretary that the inevitable fall of Assad should not be treated as an end in itself?

William Hague: Yes, my hon. Friend is absolutely right. It is important to have a functioning state in Syria in which all people have their own legitimate stake and to have the democratic, non-sectarian Syria that I have been describing.

Debbie Abrahams: What action has been taken to date to bring together the different factions of the opposition and what are the Foreign Secretary’s plans for that in the future?

William Hague: Many of those factions have come together in the National Coalition. We have been working on that and we have a special representative to the opposition at ambassador level who works with them daily on all the issues and encourages them to come together. Further meetings are taking place about broadening support, particularly with more Kurdish involvement, and that work is going on.

Jason McCartney: I served as part of a very effective no-fly zone over northern Iraq in the 1990s in Operation Warden. Did my right hon. Friend notice the television pictures last week of the alleged use of chemical gas weapons, which were delivered by helicopter, rather than by artillery shells?

William Hague: Yes. I was not implying, in my answer to an earlier question, that there is no regime air activity, but a huge amount of its activity is through shelling and mortars, and if chemical weapons are used, they can be fired from artillery. Air activity is one factor, and that is the complication when it comes to advocating a no-fly zone.

Philip Hollobone: Are we confident in our assessment of Turkey’s intentions with regard to Syria?

William Hague: Yes, Turkey plays a very important role in all our diplomatic work on Syria. Of course, it is extremely anxious about the extent of the crisis, and is grateful for the deployment of NATO Patriot missiles inside Turkey. We should pay tribute to the Turkish people, who are showing their hospitality to huge numbers of refugees while enduring outrageous bomb attacks, such as the one that we saw a few days ago.

Mr Speaker: I hope that the Foreign Secretary will be signing copies of his textbook on the timely handling of questions to Ministers. There were 36 Back-Bench questions in 35 minutes of exclusively Back-Bench time. I point out to the House that there is a further opportunity to consider these matters tomorrow in the Chamber, as the relevant Minister has kindly just informed me.

Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Bill (Programme) (No. 2)

Hugh Robertson: I beg to move,
	That the Order of 5 February 2013 (Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Bill (Programme)) be varied as follows:
	(1) Paragraphs 4, 5 and 6 of the Order shall be omitted.
	(2) Proceedings on Consideration and Third Reading shall be taken in two days in accordance with the following provisions of this Order.
	(3) Proceedings on Consideration shall be taken on the days shown in the first column of the following Table and in the order so shown.
	(4) Proceedings on Consideration shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at the times specified in the second column of the Table.
	
		
			 Table 
			 Proceedings Time for conclusion of proceedings 
			 First day   New Clauses relating to any of the following:   (a) sex education,   (b) conscientious or other objection to marriage of same sex couples,   (c) equality law,   (d) religious organisations’ opt-in to marriage of same sex couples, and (e) protection against compulsion to solemnize marriages of same sex couples or to carry out activities in relation to the solemnization of such marriages amendments to Clause 2 other than amendments to the definition of ‘relevant marriage’ in subsection (4), amendments to Clause 8, and amendments to Schedule 7 relating to section 403 of the Education Act 1996. 7 pm 
			 New Clauses relating to civil partnership or other kinds of legally recognised relationships between persons, amendments to Clause 1, amendments to Part 3 of Schedule 4, New Clauses relating to referendums, and amendments to Clause 18. 10.00 pm 
			 Second day   New Clauses and New Schedules relating to humanist marriage, remaining amendments to Clause 2, amendments to Clause 5, amendments to Schedule 7 relating to section 46 of the Marriage Act 1949, and remaining proceedings on Consideration. One hour before the moment of interruption on the second day. 
		
	
	(5) Proceedings on Third Reading shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at the moment of interruption on the second day.
	A programme motion was agreed to on Second Reading, and it has already delivered a full day on Second Reading, at which more than 70 Members, of all views and from across the House, spoke. It also delivered four detailed evidence sessions and three weeks in Committee; there will now be two days for Report and Third Reading. This motion is self-explanatory, and I look forward very much to debate on the issues, so I commend the motion to the House.

Chris Bryant: We agree.

Peter Bone: I do not agree. The problem is that if we debate the programme motion, we eat into time that is required for us to debate the subject, but it is absurd that such a major constitutional change is being rushed through under a timetable motion. Today, we should have been able to speak until any hour. This is such an important issue; we should debate it fully, but this will be a joke.

Tom Harris: I am intrigued; if the hon. Gentleman believes that no constitutional measure should have a programme motion attached to it, will he make exactly the same argument when and if we come to debate a European referendum?

Peter Bone: I absolutely agree with the hon. Gentleman. He is fundamentally right that there should not be these programme motions, and I congratulate him on pointing that out. When we divide on the motion, I look forward to him going into the same Lobby as me.
	This happens when the three main parties agree on a controversial motion. They try to force it through without proper scrutiny. Tonight, the amendments relating to a referendum will probably not even be reached. It was really appalling when Labour acted in this way, and it is absolutely appalling that we are doing the same thing now.

Julian Huppert: I agree with the Minister and the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant), and disagree strongly with the hon. Member for Wellingborough (Mr Bone). Two days is quite a lot of time in which to get through these stages, and I fear that there will be rather more heat than light thrown on to the issues in some cases. I will not waste time with a long speech on why two days is satisfactory. I hope that the hon. Member for Wellingborough will not take up lots of time with a Division. I hope that we get on to amendment 15 and the other amendments in the same group, which are on transgender issues. They are not the main thrust of the Bill, but they are very important for a number of people around the country.

Tony Baldry: Such contributions as I make in the next two days, I make in my capacity as Second Church Estates Commissioner. I put on record at the outset of this important Report and Third Reading stage that we are very grateful for the time that the Secretary of State and other Ministers have taken to
	discuss with me, the Bishop of Leicester and others our concerns about the Bill. It has been a constructive dialogue, and that should be placed on the record.
	We still have concerns about some of the freedom of conscience issues that will be part of the first group of amendments to be debated this afternoon, but if we deal with the timetable properly, there is no reason why all the issues of concern cannot be properly discussed over the next two days.

Fiona Bruce: I do not want to take up very much time in opposing the programme motion, but I want to put on record an expression of grave concern on behalf of myself and many hon. Members in the House that we will have less than three hours for the first group of amendments, which contain key issues of conscience and of serious concern not only to us, but to many people across the nation.

Peter Bottomley: May I add to what the Second Church Estates Commissioner said? Obviously, the Churches and faith groups have things to say and things to think about, and decisions that they may have to make, assuming the Bill makes progress.
	I had intended, if this had been a livelier programme motion debate, to reflect briefly on some of the other significant changes to people’s lives that have passed through this House, including one of the great reform Bills, which passed by one vote, the frustrations that William Wilberforce had in his time, and the reasons that people gave against extending the vote to women, but I shall confine myself to saying that the programme motion allows it to be understood that those who were among the 400 saying yes on Second Reading have to accord some respect to the 175 who said no. It would be a very good idea if those who comment on our proceedings realised that by more than two to one we were in a majority on Second Reading. If we are going to extend the opportunity and the right to marry to eligible people of the same sex—

Gerald Howarth: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Peter Bottomley: I was going to try to finish my sentence, if I might.
	If we are going to extend the opportunity and the right to those who qualify and who choose to do so to get married, and recognise the difference between a civil partnership, now accepted, and an equal civil marriage where they are allowed to say “I do” and “I declare”, that is not the biggest thing the House has done. I hope we manage to get through these two days and pass the Bill on Third Reading and that it gets through another place as well. That would be a good programme.

Gerald Howarth: rose—

Mr Speaker: I think the hon. Gentleman has finished his speech.

Stephen Doughty: I commend the work of the Bill Committee in examining the Bill in great detail and subjecting it to close scrutiny. It heard from many expert witnesses who discussed many of the issues before us today in the amendments that have been selected, so I would not want to leave the House with any mistaken idea that the Bill had not enjoyed full scrutiny before it reached this stage. I recommend to all Members that they read the transcripts of those debates. We went through many of the issues in great detail and I believe the Bill has had the scrutiny that it deserves.

Gerald Howarth: My hon. Friend the Member for Worthing West (Sir Peter Bottomley) has been typically generous to those with whom he is not in agreement, but I point out politely to him that although there was a majority in the House in favour of Second Reading, there was not a majority of Conservatives. The majority of Conservatives who voted voted against the measure. It was not in any party’s mandate at the last general election. It is therefore presumptuous of the Government to seek to railroad the measure through the House.
	This is a very sensitive issue on which there are profoundly different views and huge concerns about the protections available to those who take a contrary view to that of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister. So it is unfortunate that we have not had more time to debate the matter, and it is extremely unfortunate that, with one exception, no amendment was accepted by the Minister of State, Department for Culture, Media and Sport, who was in charge of the Committee stage of the Bill. That exception was to do with something that he and I have in common—a concern for our armed forces.

Edward Leigh: rose—

Mr Speaker: Sir Edward Leigh.

Edward Leigh: No, Mr Speaker, I am not—[Interruption.]

Mr Speaker: I am ever hopeful, against the odds, for the hon. Gentleman.

Edward Leigh: The real problem is that we have only two and a half hours to discuss serious issues relating to equality protection. Given that we have a very light legislative Session, surely the Government could have given more time for that.

Gerald Howarth: My hon. Friend, whose elevation I hope you have quite rightly foreseen, Mr Speaker, is absolutely right. The Queen’s Speech did not contain many measures. I happen to be a Conservative who believes that we should be repealing measures and that it is a good thing that we do not have too heavy a Session.

David Burrowes: My hon. Friend will have heard the comment that the Bill has had adequate scrutiny in Committee, but the reality is that the people who scrutinised it were the dissenters, rather than the cheerleaders on the Opposition Benches.
	Is not the purpose of the remaining stages to allow all Members the opportunity to provide effective scrutiny? The other place will certainly be watching with concern as we curtail our scrutiny of the Bill.

Gerald Howarth: I would like to put it on the record, I hope on behalf of the whole House, that my hon. Friend has worked like a Trojan to ensure that the concerns that we believe reflect the views of the majority of people in this country, if not in the House of Commons, have been courteously but firmly made clear. I thank him for what he has done and hope that others will share that gratitude.
	It is unfortunate that the Government did not allow the Committee stage to be taken on the Floor of the House, where many of the issues that concern us and many of our constituents and clergy could have been more properly debated, and at greater length. However, we are where we are and, as my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Mr Leigh) has said, there is not much time, so I will leave it at that.
	Given the state of the country and the huge problems it faces with regard to clearing up the catastrophic destruction of the public finances levied upon Britain by the Labour party, that is the issue we should be concentrating on, not a matter that is very divisive and strikes at the heart of the profound beliefs of a number of Members on both sides of the House. My parting shot is this: I hope that the Opposition Chief Whip will allow her right hon. and hon. Friends a free vote on all the amendments, not just Third Reading.
	Question put and agreed to.

Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Bill
	 — 
	[1st Allocated Day]

Consideration of Bill, not amended in the Public Bill Committee

New Clause 1
	 — 
	Education Act 1996

‘(1) Section 403 of the Education Act 1996 (sex education: manner of provision) is amended as follows.
	(2) After subsection (1D) insert—
	“(1E) For the purposes of subsection (1A)—
	(a) No school shall be under any duty as a result of the guidance issued to promote or endorse an understanding of the nature of marriage and its importance for family life and the bringing up of children that runs contrary to the designated religious character of the school.
	(b) This subsection is without prejudice to any guidance issued by the Secretary of State regarding the legal status of marriage.”.’.—(Mr Burrowes.)
	Brought up, and read the First time.

David Burrowes: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
	New clause 2—Conscientious objection—
	‘(1) Subject to subsections (2) and (3) of this section, no registrar shall be under any duty, whether by contract or by any statutory or other legal requirement, to conduct, be present at, carry out, participate in, or consent to the taking place of, a relevant marriage ceremony to which he has a conscientious objection.
	(2) Nothing in subsection (1) shall affect the duty of each registration authority to ensure that there is a sufficient number of relevant marriage registrars for its area to carry out in that area the functions of relevant marriage registrars.
	(3) The conscientious objection must be based on a sincerely- held religious or other belief.
	(4) In any legal proceedings the burden of proof of conscientious objection shall rest on the person claiming to rely on it.’.
	New clause 3—Conscientious objection: transitional arrangements—
	‘(1) No person shall be under any duty, whether by contract or by statutory or other legal requirement, to conduct a marriage to which he has a conscientious objection if he is employed as a registrar of marriages on the date this Act comes in force.
	(2) For the purposes of this section, a “conscientious objection” exists where the refusal to conduct a marriage is only that it concerns a same sex couple, and is based on the person’s sincerely held religious or other beliefs.
	(3) This section is without prejudice to the duty of a registration authority to ensure that there is a sufficient number of registrars and superintendent registrars in that area to carry out the required functions.
	(4) In any legal proceedings the burden of proof of conscientious objection shall rest on the person claiming to rely on it.’.
	New clause 4—Chapter 2 of the Equality Act 2010—
	‘(1) In the Equality Act 2010, after section 19, insert the following section—
	19A For the purposes of this Act discussion or criticism of same sex marriage shall not be taken of itself to be discrimination.”.’.
	New clause 5—Public sector equality duty—beliefs about marriage—
	‘(1) In the Equality Act 2010, after section 149(9), insert —
	“(10) Compliance with the duties in this section requires ensuring that a belief regarding the definition of marriage as being between a man and a woman is respected and that no person should suffer any detriment in respect of the holding or the reasonable expression of such a belief.”.’.
	New clause 6—Beliefs about marriage—
	‘(1) In the Equality Act 2010, after section 10(3), insert —
	“(4) The protected characteristic of religion or belief may include a belief regarding the definition of marriage as being between a man and a woman.”.’.
	New clause 7—Legal proceedings against a person—
	‘(1) A decision by a person not to undertake an opt-in activity shall not be questioned in any legal proceedings whatsoever.
	(2) Expressions used in this section have the same meaning as the expressions used in section 2 of this Act.’.
	New clause 8—Domestic protection for persons—
	‘(1) For the purposes of this Act “compelled” includes, but is not limited to—
	(a) less favourable treatment of a person by a public authority,
	(b) the imposition of any criminal or civil penalty, and
	(c) any legal proceedings against a person as a result of a decision not to opt-in, conduct, be present at, carry out, participate in, or consent to the taking place of, relevant marriages.
	(2) Expressions used in this section have the same meaning as the expressions used in section 2 of this Act.’.
	Amendment 2, in clause2,page3,leave out lines 21 and 22.
	Government amendment 23.
	Amendment 4, page4,line10,at end insert—
	‘(1A) For the avoidance of doubt, a person does not provide a service or exercise a public function when the person—
	(a) refrains from undertaking an opt-in activity, or
	(b) undertakes an opt-out activity.’.
	Amendment 3, page4,line13,at end insert—
	‘(6) For the purposes of section 149 of the Equality Act 2010, no regard may be had by any public authority to any decision by a religious organisation not to opt-in, conduct, be present at, carry out, participate in, or consent to the taking place of, relevant marriages.’.
	Government amendment 24.
	Amendment 50,in schedule 7, page52,line26, at end add—
	‘Public Order Act 1986 (c. 64)
	42 (1) The Public Order Act 1986 is amended as follows.
	(2) For Section 29JA (protection of freedom of expression (sexual orientation)) substitute—
	“Section 29JA (protection of freedom of expression (sexual orientation))
	In this part, for the avoidance of doubt, the discussion or criticism of sexual conduct or practices or the urging of persons to refrain from or modify such conduct or practices or the discussion or criticism of same-sex marriage shall not be taken of itself to be threatening or intend to stir up hatred.”.’.

David Burrowes: This is undoubtedly a significant Bill that Ministers have said has at its heart the aims of equality and religious liberty. The amendments we will
	debate today will put to the test whether those laudable aims are indeed real. Indeed, the amendments, including new clause 1, which stands in my name and those of many hon. Members on both sides of the House, will at least ensure that we can take the Secretary of State at her word. She has said from the beginning that she would never introduce a Bill that encroached on religious freedom. Here is her opportunity to make good that commitment by supporting the amendments.
	It will not have gone unnoticed—indeed, it was mentioned in the debate on the programme motion—that there is limited opportunity to scrutinise, debate and ensure that the new clauses enable us properly to respect the crucial issues of freedom of speech and conscience. Nor will it go unnoticed, including in the other place, that Labour Members lack a free vote, ironically denying them the freedom of expression regarding their consciences that is at the heart of the new clauses for which I, and many other hon. Members, seek the support of the House.
	New clause 1 goes to the heart of one of the many serious issues regarding the Bill’s implications for freedom of speech in schools. The law requires that schools and teachers must not only relay the legal facts on marriage but promote legal understanding of it. John Bowers QC, one of the leading counsels who has given his opinion, has said that the Bill would create a duty to promote and endorse the new definition of marriage.
	I do not propose to speak for long about these new clauses, or other amendments, because I have had my say, particularly in the Bill Committee, and this debate is an opportunity for other Members to have their say. However, I must point out that this issue is different from divorce or abortion, for example, in relation to the guidance provided to teachers. Teachers are required to teach about marriage and, as the guidance says,
	“its importance for family life and the bringing up of children”
	in a way that that they are not required to teach about abortion or divorce. This issue already matters to teachers. According to a recent poll, 40,000 teachers are not happy to promote or endorse a different understanding of marriage and would risk their employment if they were required to do so. New clause 1 focuses particularly on seeking to ensure that Church schools are not obliged to promote or endorse same-sex marriage, which would be contrary to the religious ethos of their school.
	New clauses 2 and 3 address similar concerns in relation to registrars. No registrar should be compelled to act against their conscience or be sacked because of their views on marriage, which are held not only by a majority of the parliamentary Conservative party but by millions of others in this country. It is important to ensure that the state should not marginalise those citizens.

George Howarth: If the Bill goes through all its stages here and in the other place, it will be the law of the land. Does not the hon. Gentleman accept that it would be appropriate for teachers, in the course of any lesson that covers these issues, to make it clear that it is the law of the land? What would be wrong with that?

David Burrowes: I welcome that intervention. I am merely seeking, with the support of other hon. Members, to provide a conscientious objection clause that would not necessarily have any detrimental effect on the Bill.
	This is not unprecedented. For example, section 4 of the Abortion Act 1967 allows individuals with a conscientious objection to abstain from participating in abortions. Section 38 of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990—the right hon. Gentleman will remember the debate on that—allows any person conscientiously to object to participation in work involving the treatment and development of human embryos. Paragraph 2(3) of the relevant national health service regulations allows medical staff to refrain from providing contraceptive services. Atheist teachers are not required to conduct collective services or to teach religious education. Those are just a few of the conscientious objection clauses that are already enshrined in law and do not seek to go against the principle of the legislation concerned. What is appropriate for GPs and teachers should also be appropriate for registrars.
	The new clauses would strike a proper balance between the right of marriage and the right of conscience. If the Bill is passed, they should not in any way hinder the ability of same sex-couples to marry. As a precondition, an appropriate number of registrars should be available. That is a reasonable proposal.
	New clause 3 is even more reasonable. It is a transitional measure similar to a provision in the Netherlands, which has led the charge in legalising same-sex marriage.

Tom Harris: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

David Burrowes: I am afraid not, because I want to make progress to allow other hon. Members to speak.
	Dutch registrars who were already employed before the legislation was passed are able to exercise their conscience and object. If it is good enough for those Dutch registrars, it is good enough for UK registrars. During the Bill Committee, one hon. Member suggested that people should realise that the writing is on the wall for their employment and that they should jolly well recognise that they will have to stick to the law and not exercise their own conscience, or get out now while they have the chance. That is disgraceful and amounts to serving people with a notice to quit. It means that this will be not just a marriage Bill, but an unfair dismissal Bill.

Tim Loughton: Is not the situation worse than that? In Committee, the Government, in effect, designed a hierarchy of exemptions. A Catholic surgeon is perfectly entitled to refuse to conduct an abortion paid for by public funds, but a Catholic registrar, who is similarly in public service paid for by public funds, could lose his position if he declined, out of a conscientious objection, to perform a same-sex marriage. Where is the fairness in that?

David Burrowes: I agree. This Bill is supposed to be about fairness and ensuring appropriate freedom and liberty, which goes beyond what happens in a marriage service.

Stephen Williams: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

David Burrowes: No. The hon. Gentleman and I were members of the Committee, where we had a chance to have our say. I will not give way, because I want people to be able to have their say. That is the point of this debate. [Hon. Members: “Give way!] Opposition Members
	are calling for me to give way, but I am not sure whether they will be allowed to exercise their conscience when it comes to voting on the Bill, or whether they are even free to get involved in this debate. They will be whipped into voting against me whatever I say or think, so I am not sure whether it is worth listening to them at this precise moment.
	New clauses 4, 5 and 6 and amendment 50 seek to protect freedom of speech, which, along with freedom of conscience, we should all cherish dearly. We should cherish the fact that we are able to stand up and make our points, whether they be for or against the Bill’s principles, and that we can all—Liberal Democrats and Conservatives can, at least—exercise our conscience on the amendments. We are concerned about constituents who will not be able to do that as easily, so we need to ensure that the Bill has clarity.
	The Bill has provoked undoubtedly strong feelings across the country. People from all strands and strata of society have deeply held, carefully considered and, indeed, principled views. Some have tried to say that this is an issue for the young, not the old, and for metropolitan, not rural areas, but people—whether they are young or old, or deeply religious or assertively secular—have real concerns. Polls come up with a different figure for the numbers for or against, depending on the question asked. The nation is as divided as the Conservative parliamentary party on this issue. Indeed, we have picked an issue on which our division shows that we are very much in touch with the nation.
	At the very least, we need to ensure that we properly protect those who do not agree with the way in which the state wants to redefine marriage. This Bill is undoubtedly a divisive measure, but it is meant to be permissive. However, due to a lack of attention or time, it does not provide against causing further division and isolation or against ostracising the millions out there who are passionately against the principle of the Bill.
	This country has a great and honourable tradition—a civilised and progressive belief that we do not censor or ostracise those who hold different views from our own. Indeed, we will defend that right however much we might disagree with those views. The new clauses ask the House a basic and reasonable question: will we stand firm in that tradition? Will we stand with the greats of our political heritage to defend the whole breadth of society, or will we consider only our own particular views, needs and rights? Tomorrow we will gather again to debate the Bill’s Third Reading and we will divide in our usual way to vote on whether we agree with its very principle. We need to ensure that we stand together, despite the Labour Whip, and provide clarity.
	The Bill Committee heard a lot of evidence and I am not sure whether everyone has had the chance to pore over the minutiae of our deliberations. We heard from a solicitor called Mark Jones, who represents a number of campaigners whose beliefs are being trumped by equality. When asked about freedom of speech, he replied that the Bill will have an impact
	“anywhere where there is a conversation.”––[Official Report, Marriage (Same Sex Marriage) Public Bill Committee, 14 February 2013; c. 161, Q417.]
	I was reminded of that just three days ago—on Friday—when a street preacher in Cambridge was nearly arrested for arguing for the traditional view of marriage. A member of the public called the police and told the preacher:
	“Anyone who believes in man/woman only marriage should be sent to jail. Equality overrides free speech”.
	The street preacher was filmed on mobile phones and a small crowd declared that they had evidence to put him in jail. Two police officers duly arrived and were shown the evidence. A police officer listened intently to the preacher’s words. Thankfully, common sense prevailed and the police went away, but it was a close call and that was before the change to the law. [Interruption.] The Minister of State may well laugh, but if he saw somebody exercising their freedom of speech and experienced that chill factor, I hope that he would stand alongside them and defend their right. I am sure that he is as concerned as others. Amendment 50 aims to avoid the extraordinary situation of somebody being criminalised for exercising their right to support traditional marriage.

Julian Huppert: rose—

Ben Bradshaw: rose—

David Burrowes: I will make some progress.
	Mark Jones warned that individuals without the benefit of pro bono leading counsel arguing their corner will be terrified that their careers and reputations will be swept from under them. As he said,
	“The majority of them simply resign quietly.”––[Official Report, Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Public Bill Committee, 14 February 2013; c. 163, Q421.]
	We do not have sight or sound of them.
	I will make one final point because I want to allow other hon. Members to speak. New clause 8 and amendment 4 relate to whether the Government’s locks will apply properly. I commend the Government for doing all that they can, particularly through working with the Church of England, to ensure that the locks are adequate. The Church of England is satisfied that the Bill will do what it says. However, it shares the concerns of others that go beyond that. Large denominations such as the Catholic Church and small independent Churches are concerned that they may be discriminated against because of their decision to opt out. The Bill takes us on to new terrain, and not just with regard to the definition of marriage; there is the new terrain of legal challenge. The Government need to be as clear as possible to avoid encroachments on religious liberty.

Edward Leigh: There was apparently a great degree of merriment when my hon. Friend said that nobody was arrested in the case that he mentioned. However, that misses the point. The trouble is that most people will do anything to avoid a scene and are terrified of the police being involved in any way. There is therefore a danger of self-censorship and of people being worried about speaking up. In this country, people should not be so worried.

David Burrowes: Whether it is laughter or jeers that we hear, there is a chill wind blowing.

Ben Bradshaw: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

David Burrowes: I will give way if the right hon. Gentleman will have a free vote on my amendments.

Ben Bradshaw: I am just asking the hon. Gentleman to give way.

David Burrowes: Will the right hon. Gentleman have a free vote? Will he be exercising his conscience? If not, I will carry on.
	There is a chill wind blowing for those who uphold traditional marriage. All the new clauses and amendments tabled in my name and supported by other hon. Members would ensure that the Government mean it when they say that they support religious liberty. Actions speak louder than words. The Government have the opportunity today to use both: they can act to put the right words in the Bill.

Stephen Doughty: I want to re-emphasise the point that the Bill received detailed, respectful and expert scrutiny in Committee, in contrast to the objections expressed by Government Members. I appreciated the scrutiny that the hon. Member for Enfield, Southgate (Mr Burrowes) gave to the Bill and we all listened to it extremely carefully. There were disagreements in Committee and there will be disagreements in the House today and tomorrow, but that does not mean that the Bill has not received the scrutiny or the time it deserves.
	I am grateful that the Government have responded to the concerns of people on both sides of the debate about a range of issues, including the position of religious organisations, teachers, schools and civil registrars. I have been reassured by the responses to a number of those concerns. If anything, my view that this is a permissive and protecting Bill has been reinforced. That view was certainly reinforced by what I heard in Committee. I urge the House to look at the evidence that was presented.

Gerald Howarth: Will the hon. Gentleman record his distaste at those who sought to shout down the preacher to whom my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, Southgate (Mr Burrowes) referred? Will he and his colleagues put it on the record that it is utterly unacceptable to intimidate people by calling the police in order to shut down freedom of expression on this issue?

Stephen Doughty: I believe in freedom of speech in this country and in people’s ability to say what they want. It has been made clear that no further was action was taken in that case, and the person was not prosecuted. I believe in that and in people in this House being able to express their views, as I have said on a number of occasions.

Stephen McCabe: I find the example given very distasteful, just as I find fanatics who attack British troops on the high streets of our towns distasteful. However, if we are to protect freedom of speech, do we not have to tolerate that sort of thing, unless an obvious offence is being committed?

Stephen Doughty: I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention.
	I wish to draw the House’s attention to the verbal and written evidence presented by Lord Pannick, which I think addressed many of the concerns expressed by the
	hon. Member for Enfield, Southgate and other members of the Committee regarding the protections and legal status of various people in the Bill. His memorandum to the Bill states:
	“The legal position is clear beyond doubt. The Bill states, in unambiguous terms, that no religious organisation or representative is required to marry a same sex couple;”
	and he mentions the opt-in and opt-out mechanisms. He also makes clear that:
	“For the European Court of Human Rights to compel a religious body or its adherents to conduct a religious marriage of a same-sex couple would require a legal miracle much greater than the parting of the Red Sea”.
	He made that point clearly and ended his submission by stating:
	“For the reasons set out above, the arguments of those who oppose the Bill are not assisted by legal concerns.”

Ben Bradshaw: Does my hon. Friend share my surprise that some Government Members do not seem to believe the Education Secretary who, in clear evidence about freedom of speech for teachers, said:
	“If I thought any legislation, however well intentioned, would make life more difficult for great teachers and great schools, I wouldn’t support it. I have complete confidence in the protection our law offers freedom of conscience and speech.”?
	He said that no change to the proposed legislation was necessary.

Stephen Doughty: I totally agree with my right hon. Friend. The Education Secretary made his point clearly and was put under detailed scrutiny by Government Members.
	I have held conversations with members of the Church of England and the Church in Wales since the Public Bill Committee, and they seem reassured by a number of the measures put forward and the questions raised. I also point to the simple passion of witnesses such as Alice Arnold, who stated their clear wish to get married and not to have to answer questions about that ambiguously, as they do at the moment. I remind the House of the passion for equality that exists.
	I regret that there have been further attempts to muddy the waters by opponents of the Bill outside the House. As I said, the debate in Committee was respectful, but matters have been raised in the press and media over the past few days that cause concern. I have received a number of confused and concerning e-mails and e-mails from people who are absolutely behind the House and the clear majority expressed on Second Reading and behind the polls that show the public’s clear support for the Bill, notwithstanding their respect for those who feel differently. I therefore feel that there is simply no need for a number of the amendments proposed, and having seen some of the evidence presented I would have thought some of them might have been withdrawn.

Fiona O'Donnell: In relation to teachers, surely we must also think about the children of same-sex couples who could be made to feel in the classroom that the love of their parents is in some way less worthwhile and valued.

Stephen Doughty: Absolutely. I agree with my hon. Friend and we heard passionate evidence from school representatives on issues of homophobic bullying and
	the position of LGBT staff. I believe that a dangerous precedent would be set by giving special exemptions to registrars in particular, and for state employees not to have to apply the law of the state.

Stephen Williams: I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way as it allows me to say what I would have said to the hon. Member for Enfield, Southgate (Mr Burrowes), who did not give way but who obliquely referred to me by saying that someone said in Committee that registrars should perhaps rethink their position. The difference between a registrar and an abortion surgeon is that a registrar’s sole duty is to conduct marriage. If they are unhappy about the central purpose of their job, then of course they should reconsider what they are doing. A surgeon has lots of things to do and—hopefully—abortion is a tiny, tiny part of what they might be called upon to do. That is why the exemption is there; that is the key distinction.

Stephen Doughty: I agree with the hon. Gentleman. I should point out that registrars have never previously been given opt-outs, including on performing civil partnerships or re-marrying divorcees, even on the grounds of profoundly held religious beliefs. There is an important distinction to be made.

Susan Elan Jones: Like a number of Opposition Members, I tried to catch the eye of the hon. Member for Enfield, Southgate (Mr Burrowes). I wanted to ask him whether he believed that registrars should have a right not to re-marry divorcees. I believe they should not have such a right, but he did not mention it. Will my hon. Friend allow the hon. Gentleman to respond on that point now?

Stephen Doughty: I do not know whether the hon. Member for Enfield, Southgate wishes to respond, but I worry about the precedent such a measure would set. Things could go further: if people with strongly held objections to marrying divorcees have an opt-out, those with objections to marrying those in inter-faith relationships might ask for one. That is an important distinction when we are talking about state employees.

James Duddridge: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the registrar trade body has not made representations to the Government to ask for such an arrangement? It is somewhat bizarre that the Government are offering the trade body something for which it is has not even asked.

Stephen Doughty: Indeed—the hon. Gentleman makes a strong point.
	New clauses 2 and 3 undermine the fundamental concept that everyone should be equal under law, regardless of their sexuality. Public services—we should remember that registrars perform a public service—should be available to all without discrimination. We risk undermining that concept.

Jake Berry: If the hon. Gentleman believes it is right that the Church of England has a quadruple lock to protect its religious freedom, why will he not accept small amendments to protect people of other faiths who wish to be protected under this Bill?

Stephen Doughty: My understanding from the evidence presented is that the Church of England, as the established Church in England, has special requirements to marry people who come to it. It has other statuses under canon laws. The situation of the Church in Wales is different—it is disestablished, but also has special provisions. Other religions will not be compelled by the law to marry people if they do not want to do so. As has been made clear at numerous points, the Bill is a permissive Bill that will allow those who wish, such as liberal Jews, the Unitarians, the Quakers and others, to opt in, and others to do so in time if they so wish.

Jim Cunningham: I wanted to emphasise that point. I agree with my hon. Friend. Other religions can opt in if they so choose. On the other hand, they are not forced to do anything.

Stephen Doughty: My hon. Friend makes the point perfectly.

Jake Berry: I probably did not make my earlier point correctly. I was speaking to the proposals that seek to protect people in faith schools. Given that the hon. Gentleman believes that a direct provision in the Bill on the protection of religious freedom is worth having and necessary, what is his objection to a specific protection in the Bill for people of belief who work in faith schools?

Stephen Doughty: I once again draw the hon. Gentleman’s attention to the Secretary of State for Education’s statements. He has been clear about the protections that exist and how they should be applied.
	On amendment 24, on the Church in Wales, I am pleased that the Government listened to the evidence presented in the Committee by a number of my hon. Friends and I, and that the Lord Chancellor will introduce legislation so that the Church in Wales can choose to allow same-sex marriages at a future point—I hope and pray it will do so. I am not entirely sure why the Government did not accept that proposal in Committee, but I am nevertheless pleased they have introduced that measure now. Many in the Church in Wales to whom I have spoken this weekend and others will be pleased with the amendment.
	In conclusion, I shall address the idea that the Bill has been railroaded through and that we have not had enough time. I draw the House’s attention to the fact that opponents of the Bill took up the vast majority of time in Committee raising their concerns, which have been heard—there has been a deep degree of listening. I have responded with respect to many in my constituency who are opposed to the Bill. I have had many positive comments for the way in which I have responded, as I am sure many of my hon. Friends have had.
	I draw the House’s attention to the significant international developments—in some US states and in New Zealand—since we last debated the Bill. Hon. Members would be wise to consider the celebrations and happiness in the House of Representatives in New Zealand when same-sex marriage legislation was signed. We heard the singing of love songs, and some Members of that House achieved equality. I hope hon. Members feel such happiness when we pass this Bill, although perhaps there will be no singing.

Edward Leigh: I wish to speak to new clause 6, which has 44 co-signatories and is based on a ten-minute rule Bill I introduced earlier this year. It states:
	“The protected characteristic of religion or belief may include a belief regarding the definition of marriage as being between a man and a woman.”
	It addresses the important issue of what would happen to people who believe in a man-woman marriage and goes to the heart of the concern many have about the Bill, irrespective of our views on same-sex marriage. We are told that the Bill is all about freedom, but what about the freedom of those who disagree with it? Surely their freedoms are as precious as the freedoms of the people who support the Bill. We believe that new clause 6 provides the bare minimum of protection that such people would need.
	The Equality Act 2010 outlaws discrimination on the grounds of sex, race, age, sexual orientation, religion or belief, gender reassignment and so on—it is pretty comprehensive. One would have thought that a person’s belief on traditional marriage, which may go to the heart of their most sincere beliefs, was covered by “religion or belief”. However, the evidence of all the cases I have studied and that we have seen in recent years is that it does not: there is no protection for these people. Whatever our views on the Bill, we are worried about what will happen in the workplace and ensuring protection for people who take a traditional view of marriage.
	The Government have apparently done a lot of work to protect churches from being compelled to approve same-sex marriage by having to solemnise them. I give credit to the Government, although they overstate the case slightly when they say that the Church of England is now entirely happy. The Church of England briefing on Second Reading stated:
	“we doubt the ability of the government to make legislation watertight against challenge in the European courts or against a ‘chilling’ effect on public discourse.”
	It is important to bear in mind that “chilling” effect, something I mentioned in my intervention.

Chris Bryant: Although I understand the hon. Gentleman’s argument about the chilling effect, I think he has fundamentally misunderstood the original Equality Act. No belief—transubstantiation, the virgin birth, the resurrection or any other belief—is expressly mentioned in the Act, so to elevate this single viewpoint, which may be held by a religious or non-religious person, in the Bill is surely bizarre.

Edward Leigh: No, I do not think it is bizarre. We are at the centre of public discourse and I will deal with precisely that point. Is what I am proposing a step too far? I do not believe so, and I want to refer to recent cases. I will finish my point on the Church of England and come back to the hon. Gentleman’s point, which is serious and I want to address it.
	The Church of England briefing went on to state:
	“We retain serious doubts about whether the proffered legal protection for churches and faiths from discrimination claims would prove durable. Too much emphasis, we believe, is being placed on the personal assurances of Ministers.”
	To be fair to the Government, they have at least put something in the Bill to protect churches, but what about individual conscience? There is not a word in the Bill about that.
	I have to say straight away that new clause 6 is absolutely not a wrecking amendment. It does not stand the remotest chance of blocking the Bill, nor would it elevate or bring the law into an area wholly different from where it has been before. I want to make it absolutely clear that at 7 o’clock hon. Members can be strongly in favour of the Bill and still vote for new clause 6. Those who support the Bill but are worried about freedom of conscience should back new clause 6, because it is about an individual’s freedom in the workplace to say, “I’m sorry, but I think that marriage can only ever take place between a man and a woman.” In a moment, I will outline the case law and explain the problem.

John Hemming: I support the Bill, but I also have some concerns, which is why I have signed new clause 6. Does my hon. Friend agree that we need to start understanding people’s sensitivities, instead of trying to impose a secular consensus on the faith organisations?

Edward Leigh: Absolutely. My hon. Friend, who speaks from the Liberal Democrat Benches, makes the point in a calm and measured way, far better than I could.

Julian Brazier: I am most grateful to my hon. Friend for making such a powerful speech. In the last few weeks, on a very different subject—a deportation case—we have seen another example of the courts making it clear that neither the views expressed by Ministers nor a resolution of the House are enough to persuade them, when they have taken a fixed view on a human rights point. Only legislation can pin this down.

Edward Leigh: Absolutely. The courts made that quite clear recently.
	Before somebody leaps to their feet and tries to make out that we are defending people being beastly to gay people in the workplace, let me deal with this important point and make a statement of the obvious: protecting freedom of conscience does not mean protecting the freedom to be beastly to anybody. Equality law protects sexual orientation, gender, race and belief, but no one would say it provides for the right to be horrid to people who disagree with on any of these things, so there is no danger of that happening with new clause 6.

George Howarth: On the logic of his argument, does the hon. Gentleman think that a science teacher, for example, should be free to teach creationism?

Edward Leigh: It may happen that creationism or some other belief becomes a quasi-religious belief. In fact, many people believe it is a religious belief. If I was a passionate creationist—

William McCrea: rose—

Edward Leigh: Let me finish. I have at least got to answer the question.
	If that formed the basis of my deepest religious beliefs, I personally think it would be wrong if I was victimised in my workplace for speaking in favour of—or indeed against—creationism.

William McCrea: Will the hon. Gentleman acknowledge that quite a number of very eminent scientists believe in the scriptures and the creation?

Edward Leigh: Some people hold these beliefs passionately, and they should have a right to speak out and not lose their job as a result.

Julian Huppert: Is the hon. Gentleman actually saying that if a teacher believes in creationism, they should be allowed to teach it to pupils in their class? That is very different from a privately held belief.

Edward Leigh: I am afraid that my hon. Friend is deliberately trying to take me down a track completely what I am arguing about. I am not arguing in favour of creationism or against it; I am simply making the point that if someone has a profound religious belief—having read the Koran or the Bible—that marriage is between a man and a woman, and if they state that on Facebook, in the classroom or anywhere else, they should be protected. That is the profound and simple point. Let us not get dragged down various alleyways and byways, because we need to do something.
	It is true that people talk about controversial issues in the workplace all the time, but I think that same-sex marriage is different. It seems to many of us that if someone dares to disagree with the new orthodoxy that gay marriage is the best thing since sliced bread, they are somehow breaking a new social taboo and doing something in their workplace, particularly in the public sector, that they should not be doing. Some people say that the new clause is not necessary, but it is, because, as we all know, the tenor of debate on same-sex marriage is often characterised, I am afraid—not here, but in the public marketplace; we have heard of cases in the past —by hectoring, bullying and name calling. Given that, as I have said, most decent people will do anything to avoid a scene or do anything that risks the police getting involved, it would have a chilling effect.

Ben Bradshaw: Why does the hon. Gentleman doubt the word of the man who is often described as the darling of the Conservative right—the Education Secretary—on this very matter?

Edward Leigh: Why should the Education Secretary tell me what to do about my own conscience? I do not see the point.

Ben Bradshaw: rose—

Edward Leigh: No, no; the right hon. Gentleman is making a silly point. He is just trying to play games with something that is very important.
	The hatred that is sometimes poured on those of us who simply believe that marriage is between a man and a woman is rather sad in many ways. We are elected politicians. We are tough enough to put up with it, and we get reinforcements from our own constituents who, by the way, overwhelmingly—certainly in my constituency —support my point of view. We are tough politicians, but what about ordinary members of the public who are picked on at work in this way for believing in traditional marriage? Some refuse to believe that this happens, but we have evidence to prove it does.
	In January, I introduced a ten-minute rule Bill, which was backed by a good 86 votes to 31 in the Division. I called it the “Adrian Smith Protection Bill”—I said I would come to the evidence of what is now happening in the workplace and this is it. I named the Bill in honour of a gentleman who was demoted for “gross misconduct”. This was a man with a perfect work record who lost 40% of his salary. What did he say? Was he guilty of homophobic behaviour? No; all he said was that same-sex marriage in a church was an “equality too far”, and he put that on a Facebook page. He said it on his private Facebook page, but a colleague at work took umbrage. He raised it with his superiors at Trafford Housing Trust and they pounced on it. They were up, I have to say, for some new gay rights award—nothing wrong with that—and clearly they wanted to burnish their PC credentials. They threw the book at poor Adrian Smith—just a chap with a perfect work record who had not said anything nasty, beastly or homophobic in any sense. He had simply expressed his profound beliefs.
	Adrian Smith was told by his bosses that he deserved to lose his job, but that they would commute his sentence to demotion, in view of the high quality of his work. He did not have the money to take the case to an employment tribunal and—this is the important point—on the basis of existing case law, lawyers said that he would not have won anyway, because of the current state of employment and equality law. When there is a clash between gay rights and religious freedom, I am afraid that gay rights come first in our case law. Then an organisation came along that offered to cover his legal bills and, with some expert creative legal advice, he was able to take a High Court action. He won a ruling that his employers had breached his contract. The Government say, “Well there you go—he won. What’s the problem?”
	The problem is that employment and equality laws were not in Adrian Smith’s favour. He won only a contract action. The Court did not have the power to give him his job back—he never got it back. It could not even give him proper compensation—he never got that either. In fact, the judge lamented the fact that he got the enormous sum of £100 for all the upset he had been caused, simply for expressing a very moderate point of view. The whole exercise cost £30,000 in legal fees, which would have been well beyond his means if he had not had the backing of campaign organisations, and he was one of the lucky ones.
	The Government are refusing to recognise that they are not legislating to redefine marriage through this Bill in a vacuum. They are legislating in a culture that has been so coloured with political correctness that people like Adrian Smith—mild-mannered people expressing reasonable beliefs in moderate tones—are treated like villains. The outlandish views of the loony left of the 1980s—the views of the Lambeth councils—have now become embedded in high places. In typical leftish fashion, all those who disagree with those views are treated with hatred and contempt in order to marginalise their point of view.
	My wife says that as I get a bit older, sometimes, very late at night, I get a bit cross-eyed, but if you accuse me of being swivel-eyed, Mr Speaker, I could take you to court on disability grounds. Unfortunately, many people
	with traditional points of view—whether on gay marriage or immigration—somehow feel that they are being marginalised in political debate. This leads to alienation and more people voting for protest parties. This is going on and we should recognise it. These people are dismissed as bigots because they object to having their marriages redefined over their heads by rewriting the Marriage Act, under which they got married, which is the most important thing in their lives.

George Howarth: The hon. Gentleman is being very generous in giving way. May I give him some reassurance? I do not think for one minute that he is swivel-eyed—just myopic.

Edward Leigh: I take that as a serious intervention, but I do not think I am myopic. There is a real sense of alienation in this country among people with traditional views. They are decent people and I believe that they have a right to feel comfortable in society, and particularly in their workplace, expressing those views and speaking out for what they believe in. I do not think that that makes me myopic at all.

Sarah Wollaston: Does my hon. Friend accept, however, that the real alienation, which has taken place over centuries, is felt by people in schools who are homosexual? Sexuality is fundamental to who children are, and that should be acknowledged and they should be made to feel that they have equal rights and equal value in our society.

Edward Leigh: My hon. Friend makes an obvious point, and of course we have moved on from the 1950s and 1960s. People have to feel comfortable with their own sexuality, but surely they should also feel comfortable expressing a traditional viewpoint. That is all that the new clause is trying to achieve.
	If cases such as that of Adrian Smith can happen now, before the law is changed, we can be absolutely certain that there will be many more in the future. We cannot yet be sure what will happen in churches and elsewhere, but we can be sure that there will be more such cases if the Bill is passed unamended. Equality law is meant to protect all beliefs, religious and otherwise. Some people believe in man-woman marriage for religious reasons, and they have a right to that belief. Others believe in it for non-religious reasons. Both ought to be protected, but case law so far suggests that neither is. Apart from Adrian, no traditional marriage supporter who has been on either end of a legal action has ever won.
	I have already said that Adrian’s victory was somewhat pyrrhic. Equality law was no help to him. He won an old-fashioned contract law claim. New clause 6 would address the obvious inequality in the law by ensuring that a belief in traditional marriage was protected on the “religion or belief” ground. It would not, of course, guarantee that a person with traditional views would win in every case. I am not suggesting that. All other considerations of equality law would still apply, as would all the other discrimination grounds. The new clause would not guarantee that a person with traditional views would win the race; it would simply get them a place on the starting blocks. That is all we are trying to
	do. This is a moderate, sensible measure and I hope that the Government will consider it, because we are about to create a whole new generation of victims.
	Let me read what Mr Smith said:
	“I tried reasoning with my bosses, but they dug their heels in. I was left with no option but to go to court to clear my name. It took the better part of two years, which was a living nightmare for my family and me. In November the High Court ruled in my favour. But they didn’t have the power to order my reinstatement so I was left in a demoted job which carried a lower salary. I have now found a job with a different employer. I shouldn’t have been treated like an outcast, and my family shouldn’t have had to suffer like they did.”
	All the warm words of Ministers are worthless if someone is sitting in a housing association office in Bury being told that they are some kind of villain for saying that same-sex marriage is an “equality too far”. Ministerial assurances from the Dispatch Box are no help when people are stigmatised for a sincerely held belief and struggling financially because they have had 40% knocked off their salary. They need real legal protection against the bullies. New clause 6 would give them that protection, and I hope that hon. Members will support it.

David Lammy: I have been moved to make a small contribution to the debate. It is important, in responding to the hon. Member for Gainsborough (Mr Leigh), to put on record that there are many religious people who do not recognise the caricature that he has put before the House today. They understand that the House is deliberating on what will become law if the Bill passes through another place, and that, at other points in its history, Members have had to make similar difficult determinations about what should become law. Once this measure becomes law, there will be an obligation on public servants such as registrars, and certainly on teachers, to understand this matter and to teach it as the law. We should therefore draw a distinction between the promotion or endorsement of a personal view and what is the law.
	I say gently that Members will recognise that not that long ago, in deliberating on matters of race, this House made changes to its position and sought to end the discrimination of minority people, many of whom had arrived in this country in the Windrush generation. My father was one of those people, and he certainly recollected a period in his lifetime when it was commonplace for those applying for a job or housing or meeting certain public officials to encounter either the attitude or the sign of “No Irish, No Blacks, No Dogs”. We moved to say that that behaviour was not right. It remained racist and people had strong views on it, but legally we arrived at a position where this House declared that it was wrong.
	In a sense, what we are doing here is declaring that the sort of prejudice that stops gay men and women marrying is wrong. If we arrive at a place in the coming months where we decide that that sort of prejudice is illegal, it cannot be right for any teacher to be entitled to have a separate view and to propagate such a view to children.

Richard Drax: rose—

David Lammy: I am not going to give way.
	The hon. Member for Gainsborough should also recall that this House deliberated for 20 years—he will know the name of William Wilberforce—on the abolition of the slave trade. [Interruption.] Conservative Members may tut, but they know that this House was split for 20 years on the issue of whether black human beings were human or chattel. There were Christians in this House who sought to suggest that black human beings were chattel, and that somehow it was a matter of conscience and we should not end the slave trade. That is why this is a noble fight and why no hon. Member should have truck with the exception that is being put forward.

Gerald Howarth: It is rather disappointing to hear the right hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr Lammy) introducing such an emotive subject of 180 years ago, but let me get to the point of the amendments.
	I strongly support my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Mr Leigh), and I want particularly to home in on two issues: education and the armed forces. First, on education, I think that there is complete confusion. To a certain extent, the right hon. Member for Tottenham put his finger on the point: those who have a view contrary to his will not be allowed to express it in our schools, without being punished for so doing.

Richard Drax: May I confirm that the view stated by the right hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr Lammy) is, in essence, a direct attack on free speech in this country, which has been held dear for hundreds, nay thousands, of years?

Gerald Howarth: With respect to my hon. Friend, I do not think that the right hon. Gentleman is attacking free speech, but he is professing a view of which ordinary people out there will take note. That is what is leading to the chilling effect, the intimidation—[Interruption.] It is no good the hon. Member for West Ham (Lyn Brown) looking in astonishment; she should talk to some of the staff in this place and find out how intimidated they feel about expressing a view on these matters. Surely Opposition Members have also had the experience of expressing a forthright view when talking to constituents —I am not politically correct, and given my certain age, I tend to express a forthright view—and of being told that we may say such things but that they cannot do so. They tell me in words of one syllable that they fear they will lose their jobs if they articulate the same view as I express.

Fiona Mactaggart: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Gerald Howarth: No, I will not give way yet.
	The House ignores at its peril the chilling effect that already exists out there—although it is now okay for us to discuss immigration, thanks to the Leader of the Opposition, who has recognised that there is huge public concern and has graciously sanctioned our speaking about it in terms that, in previous times, he might have dismissed as being racist.
	There are people out there who will be intimidated by this legislation. I have to say to my hon. Friend the Minister that I entirely agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury (Mr Brazier), who made
	the point that, at the end of the day, his assurances, and those of his Front-Bench colleagues, are utterly worthless. We have ceded the power of the House of Commons not to the courts of this land, but to the European Court of Human Rights. That Court will be the ultimate determinant of what is to prevail, the right of the teacher expressing a profoundly religious view or the public equality duty.
	Opposition Members speak effortlessly of their belief in freedom of expression, but I am afraid that the reality out there is very different. Our constituents do feel intimidated. They fear that they will be accused of a hate crime. That, in my view, is a new and wholly pernicious development of the law.

Margot James: The notion of a “chilling effect” is new to me, but I recall in the 1980s, and even the 1990s, what I would describe as a freezing effect on the lives of gay people and other minorities. At that time, the majority were at liberty to discriminate against us in employment, and in practically every other walk of life. As for speech—goodness! I recall some outrageous verbal aggression from those days. Let me ask my hon. Friend this. Does he not think that some of the legislation that has been passed over the years and to which he seems to object, historically, has actually levelled the playing field rather than going too far in the opposite direction?

Gerald Howarth: I greatly respect my hon. Friend, whom I consider to be a very decent person and who has expressed her view very courteously. However, I warn her, and Members in all parts of the House, that I fear that the playing field is not being levelled. I believe that the pendulum is now swinging too far in the opposite direction. There are plenty in the aggressive homosexual community who see this is as but a stepping stone to something even further.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Gerald Howarth: No, I will not give way.
	I say to my hon. Friend that striking the right balance is, of course, important—[Interruption.] Now I am being shouted down for expressing a view in the House of Commons with which others do not agree.

Jonathan Reynolds: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Gerald Howarth: I will not give way, no.
	My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport has said this, issued four days ago:
	“Let me make it absolutely clear that no teacher will be required to promote or endorse views which go against their beliefs. Teachers will teach the factual position that, under the law, marriage can be between opposite sex couples and same sex couples, but, as is the case now, can make clear that their faith teaches that marriage can only be between two people of opposite sex.”
	We have been assured time and again that the Church of England—the established Church of these islands, of which Her Majesty the Queen is the supreme governor—is
	happy. Well, actually, the Church of England is not happy. The briefing that we have just received from it—also dated 16 May—points out:
	“The Secretary of State for Education has a duty, under section 403 of the Education Act 1996, to issue guidance so that pupils in maintained schools ‘learn the nature of marriage and its importance for family life and the bringing up of children’.”
	The guidance also states, at section 1.7:
	“Schools of a particular religious ethos may choose to reflect that in their sex and relationship education policy.”
	Let me give another quote:
	“Whilst Church of England schools will fulfil the duty to teach about the factual nature of marriage in its new legally redefined form, there is residual unclarity over how that will interact with the continuing need for schools to reflect their religious ethos in their SRE policies. There is also at present nothing to prevent future Secretaries of State withdrawing Section 1.7 of the guidance, or amending the guidance as it currently stands.”
	The Church of England is concerned that teachers in Church of England-maintained schools will not be able to preach as the Bible says—that marriage can only be the union between a man and a woman—and who in this House feels that even if the European Court of Human Rights does not intervene, some other court will be on the side of a teacher who fears they cannot express their view? As Charles Moore said:
	“If marriage is redefined by statute to include same-sex marriage, then a teacher who refuses to teach this as right is in breach of his public sector equality duty.”
	The Minister must answer these questions—to the extent that he possibly can, of course, as I submit that he cannot answer them, because at the end of the day it will be up to the ECHR. There is complete confusion about what is actually going to happen in our schools.
	Before I move on to the issue of the armed forces—

George Howarth: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Gerald Howarth: No, I will not, as the right hon. Gentleman made rather a silly intervention last time.
	Let me give another quote:
	“Marriage is a sacred contract between a man and a woman that cannot be redefined. We believe that marriage between a man and a woman is the cornerstone of family life and the only institution within which to raise children.
	We are concerned that this radical change to the institution of marriage will impact on what is taught in schools. Muslim teachers will be forced into the contradictory position of holding private beliefs, while teaching a new legal definition of marriage.”
	For the word “Muslim”, insert “Christian”: they are interchangeable here. The faiths—whether Muslim or Christian—have real concerns about the impact on their ability to teach centuries-old tradition to our children, and I fear the Government are just going to leave it to the courts to decide who will win.

Caroline Lucas: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Gerald Howarth: I am sorry, but I will not give way.
	I want to address the matter of military chapels. As Members will know, I am one of the churchwardens at the Royal Garrison church of Aldershot. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and
	Shoreham (Tim Loughton) for the sterling work he did in Committee, where he raised on my behalf the concerns in the military. There are concerns about what will happen to chaplains. I understand that amendment 23 is designed to meet the concerns about chaplains, whether employed in the NHS or the armed forces, who express a view. Can my right hon. Friend the Minister confirm that that is what amendment 23 is designed to do?

Hugh Robertson: With the hon. Gentleman’s leave, I can confirm that is correct.

Gerald Howarth: I am your hon. Friend, Minister.
	I have now had the benefit of having read the delegation of powers memorandum produced by the Department to deal with this issue. It says:
	“Since military chapels are Crown land, used for the purposes of the State, it is necessary not only to accommodate the concerns of the religious organisations which use them but also for the Secretary of State to ensure that the interests of same sex couples who may wish to get married in such a chapel are taken into account. In relation to shared civilian places of worship, the Bill requires that in certain circumstances all of the organisations using the building must consent to its registration for marriage of same sex couples. However, it is not possible to replicate that provision as military chapels are Crown land, used for the purposes of the State. The regulation-making power is designed to offer maximum flexibility to the Secretary of State in balancing the…considerations.”
	There we have it: “in balancing these considerations”. The state, in defining such matters, will surely err on the side of the legislation and not on the side of those of us with profound beliefs.
	Although I recognise that the memorandum relates to chapels, what will happen to the Royal Garrison church in Aldershot if a same-sex couple want to be married in that church, which is funded by the state? Let us forget about the Royal Garrison church of All Saints, as that is a Christian church. I have four military churches in the garrison, so what will happen to the Roman Catholic cathedral in Aldershot if a same-sex couple want to take advantage of the measure to get married there? Will it be protected? Furthermore, what will happen to ensure that the chaplain is protected?

Stephen Gilbert: Does the hon. Gentleman recognise that one of the considerations should be the pastoral care that those chaplains owe to the gay and lesbian soldiers, sailors and airmen who have openly served our country in conflict for many years now?

Gerald Howarth: Yes, of course, and I am sure that they are perfectly capable of doing that, but their first allegiance is to their religion. They are men and women of the cloth and our religion is absolutely crystal clear on this point. The Church of England is clear that it does not support same-sex marriage and that is why the Government have had to go to inordinate lengths to try to preserve its position.
	Let me ask my right hon. Friend the Minister of State about the other people working in the office. What about the organist? What about the choristers? If they say that they do not wish to provide their services, what
	will happen to them? Will they, as public employees, be subject to some form of legal action? My right hon. Friend shakes his head, but I do not think that he is in a position to give me the assurance I seek, although I will welcome his endeavours to do so. These are fundamental points about how the legislation will have a practical impact.
	Let me finish, as I have spoken for 15 minutes. It is unacceptable that a measure that will have such an impact on our national life and that strikes at the heart of 1,000 years of religious and cultural tradition in this country has been restricted to a couple of hours’ debate in which we can explore its practical consequences, some unintended. I hope that the Minister has some good answers because, as he is a former serving soldier, my constituents will expect him to have them.

Catherine McKinnell: I rise to speak in the debate not because I have an entirely unequivocal view on the issue or because I believe strongly that either side of the argument is absolutely right, but because I can see both sides. I have deliberated long and hard before deciding to speak and how to vote, both on the amendments and on Third Reading.
	My views, like those of many people in the Chamber today, are inextricably bound with my experience, as is the case with any conscience vote. I come from a large Roman Catholic family and am the third child of eight. They say that the family that prays together stays together and that is very much the case with us. We are a close-knit unit, sometimes to the point of that being overbearing, but whenever there is a crisis or something to celebrate, we are all there in droves.
	A big part of my childhood was spent with my brother, who is two years older than me and he shared with us the fact that he was gay in his early 20s. He was my best friend growing up—my playmate, my partner in crime and my defender when in trouble—and I found it challenging when the announcement came because of my Catholic faith. It has been a journey in which I have had to question my faith and understanding of the world, but I believe that the experience has not only kept my faith intact but renewed and enriched it.
	My children have been growing up alongside their uncle and his partner, as just that: partners in life. My children do not put titles on it, or boundaries on its meaning. They do not put judgments on its worth. They see two people who love and care for each other, and who face the joys and trials of life together.
	I appreciate the intention behind the amendments and new clauses that have been brought forward, and I have studied them at length. I have heard many representations from constituents who have concerns about marriage being redefined. I have not always agreed with the constituents who have contacted or come to see me, but I hope that they feel that they have been listened to with sincerity and respect. The Bill will not serve the cause of equality if it creates intolerance on either side of the debate.
	I will always fight passionately for religious freedom. I believe that our society is richer for its diversity, and enhanced by the mutual tolerance that is, for the most part, shown. I therefore contemplated the scenarios in which that freedom might be compromised by the Bill. I have spoken to teachers on the front line, both those in
	faith schools and those in other schools. I understand the pressures; it is always a challenge to explain the world to children in a way that promotes their understanding without shattering unnecessarily soon any illusions that they may have. I also feel strongly that however they are taught about relationships, it should be done in an inclusive and tolerant way. Children should have the opportunity to learn, as I did, what their Church’s teaching is, and what the reality is for couples, individuals and families living together, up and down the country.
	My religious education—in an all-girls convent school, I might add—was thorough but balanced. We were taught the Catholic Church’s view, the humanist view, the atheist view, and the views of other faiths, and we discussed and debated issues, from abortion to euthanasia, with a broad and balanced approach. That is what I want for my children, and I believe that that is entirely possible as a result of the Bill as drafted.

Helen Jones: My hon. Friend is making a powerful speech. Does she agree—I speak as someone who supported the Bill on Second Reading—that there are concerns about some issues, including how the subject will be dealt with in schools? If the Minister cannot accept new clause 1, perhaps he can give us some assurances on the subject from the Dispatch Box, because Catholic schools in particular will want to teach what is legal, but will also want to ensure that the Church’s view is put to their pupils. None of us would want that not to happen.

Catherine McKinnell: I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. She anticipated my next remark; I was about to say that I would be grateful if the Minister provided clarity on whether my understanding is correct.
	I want to put on record that I will support the Bill, but I have taken on board the issue of receiving confirmation regarding faith education and having protections in place, so that people are free to learn of different views—views about Christian marriage and what the state teaches. Also, I seek clarification on protection from compulsion, which is dealt with in new clauses 7 and 8, and in Government amendment 23, which acknowledges that clarification is required in that regard.
	I believe in a society and state that do not discriminate on the grounds of race, gender, age, disability, sexual orientation or religious belief. I appreciate that those rights must always be balanced, and the state has a role to play in ensuring that that balance is always struck, so I am otherwise reassured that the Bill provides for those with a religious view of marriage to practise and teach their understanding of marriage, where that is done in an open, inclusive and tolerant way. My greatest hope is that one day we will reach an understanding that we all share, and will no longer even have to engage in this debate.

Nick Herbert: It is interesting how the debate about religious freedom has moved on during consideration of the Bill. Before, the debate was very much about whether the protections being given to religious institutions were sufficient, and there was a strong claim made that those protections would be challenged or would be too weak. Interestingly,
	by and large, that is not the substance of the new clauses and amendments tabled today. It seems to have been broadly accepted that the protections written into the Bill are indeed substantial.

Therese Coffey: The religious institutions—the Church of England and the Roman Catholic Church—do not accept that the protections are there, and that is why amendment 4 has been tabled: to make that clear in the Bill.

Nick Herbert: I said “by and large”. By and large, it is accepted by the religious institutions that they will not be forced to conduct same-sex marriages, which is of fundamental importance to those who, in conscience, object to the Bill, particularly religious groups. The Church of England, in its latest briefing, of which hon. Members from across the House will be aware, says:
	“The ‘quadruple lock’ does, in our view, achieve the Government’s policy intentions in this area”,
	and that is important. The substance of the amendments tabled goes beyond the direct effect of whether religious organisations should be required to conduct same-sex marriages. It is common ground in this House that no religious institution should be forced to conduct such a marriage, and that is what the Bill achieves.
	Instead, the amendments relate to the fear that my hon. Friends have expressed about whether there will be what they describe as a chilling effect, or interference with the reasonable exercise of conscience when people set out their views. Free speech is, of course, curtailed by legislation in all sorts of areas in this country. In the main, we would all agree on the areas in which it should be curtailed. We do not accept that people have the right to exercise free speech in a way that is inflammatory in respect of race relations—that is outlawed—or that is hateful. The House of Commons has passed successive measures to ensure that incitement to hatred—whether racial hatred or, most recently, hatred on grounds of sexual orientation—is outlawed, but the bar that we rightly set in that legislation was high. Members on all sides of the House of Commons felt at the time that it was perfectly proper that hatred towards gay people should be outlawed, but that reasonable comment and free speech, which may be unwelcome to people, should not be outlawed unless it actually incited hatred and violence in a way that properly brought in the province of the criminal law.
	Those debates have given rise to a concern that the criminal law, or legislation, may be used in a way that steps further than the intention of Parliament. A number of cases have been cited in which public authorities have behaved in a way that hon. Friends—I think with some cause—fear has been heavy-handed, and in a way that interferes with the reasonable expression of views that may not be welcome to particular communities, but should not be classified as amounting to a criminal offence. That is my hon. Friends’ concern, and I understand it. So often, this amounts to a question of the sensible application of the law by the public authorities—for instance, by the police. If it turns out that arrests can be made, or investigations pursued, that were not merited—and one of my hon. Friends gave an example of such a case—it is not necessarily that the law has drawn the line in the wrong place; it is that the application of the law has been unfortunate.
	It should not be the purpose of any legislation to prevent the expression of what my hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot (Sir Gerald Howarth) described as forthright views, particularly in relation to schools. There is a case for the Government helping to explain what the proper balance is. My understanding is that teachers will be under a legal duty to teach the fact of the law of the land and that same-sex marriages are available to people and lawful, but they will also be able to exercise their conscience and say that the belief of the institution for which they work is that same-sex marriage is wrong.
	Most of us agree that there should be limits on that freedom, and that were teachers to overstep the mark and start discussing the issue in a way that was hateful or unpleasant and that was deeply upsetting to children, something should prevent that. The question is whether that is the proper realm of the criminal law or whether it amounts to good teaching, good practice in schools and the sensible intervention of head teachers. Further clarity from the Government about what is and is not to be permitted in schools would be welcome.

Edward Leigh: My right hon. Friend is making a thoughtful and interesting speech. The right hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr Lammy) seemed to imply that teachers should not be allowed to express a separate point of view. May we get this clear? My right hon. Friend thinks that if I am a teacher in a Catholic school and I say that same-sex marriage is wrong, I should be allowed to say that. If that is the case, why can he not accept one of the new clauses to make that absolutely clear?

Nick Herbert: I am waiting to hear what the Government say about the implications of the new clause, but I understand what my hon. Friend is trying to achieve. I agree that it is important that we have clarity in this area and I am sure the Minister will respond.
	There should, however, be no doubt about the position of public employees in the application of the law of the land. It is much more clear-cut that registrars, for instance, should not be able to discriminate against people who are gay, as new clause 2 provides that they should, on the grounds that that would be to exercise their conscience. They are delivering a public service and the principle that this House has tended to apply—for instance, in relation to the provision of bed-and-breakfast accommodation—is that once the law is passed, it should be applied in an even-handed way. One has only to think through the implications of licensing an individual to exercise his or her conscience and to turn somebody away, decline to admit somebody for bed-and-breakfast accommodation or decline to conduct a same-sex marriage. One must think through the implications of other grounds on which they might decline such an application to realise the dangers of pursuing this approach.
	What if a registrar were to turn down on the grounds of race an application from somebody to get married? What would we think about that? Is it the position of my hon. Friends or of any hon. Member in the House that that registrar should be free to do so? If it is not—I hear a deafening silence—why do we think a registrar should be free to do so in relation to same-sex marriage, when that same-sex marriage will be lawful, according to the Bill which we expect will be passed?

Richard Drax: Does my right hon. Friend think racism is the same as stamping on conscience and religious belief? Personally, I do not see how the two are connected.

Nick Herbert: My hon. Friend has a point to this extent: for example, the bar that we set in relation to racial hatred is the highest bar of all, and when we came to the incitement of hatred in relation to sexual orientation, a lower bar was set as to the speech that would be allowed. A stronger free-speech threshold was built in, precisely because it was recognised that religious organisations might otherwise have difficulty in expressing their objection to particular attitudes. That in itself is controversial.
	I return to the question that I posed. If, in the case of an application to have a wedding, it is wrong for a registrar to turn someone away on the grounds that they are black or a member of an ethnic minority, why would it be right for a registrar to turn away a gay person? That is the essence of the question and that is why new clause 2, in seeking to protect the conscience of that registrar, who is performing a public service, goes too far and opens up the possibility that we would provide all sorts of protections for the exercise of conscience, most of which—maybe not all—Members of this House would find deeply unpalatable.

David Burrowes: I take seriously the views of my right hon. Friend and particularly welcome his comments about new clause 1. Like him, I wait to hear the Government’s response on clearing up issues of guidance. With reference to new clauses 2 and 3, he should be careful not to misguide the House on the purpose of new clause 3. It is not about turning away any couple. No same-sex couple would be turned away and prevented from having their marriage registered. The point of the new clause is to enable registrars privately to express their objection. Another registrar would have to be available to conduct the marriage. Where would the discrimination or the grievance be for that same-sex couple?

Nick Herbert: I accept that distinction from my hon. Friend. The couple would not necessarily be turned away from the register office, but that individual would have been able to object to performing that service, whereas we would not accept such an objection in relation, for instance, to race.

Chris Bryant: I urge the right hon. Gentleman not to accept the point that has just been made by the hon. Member for Enfield, Southgate (Mr Burrowes), because there are plenty of local authorities where the register office has only one registrar. If that person turns the couple away, they have been turned away from the register office.

Nick Herbert: That is an interesting intervention. The hon. Gentleman will have his opportunity to speak.
	In conclusion, we should not dismiss concerns about the reasonable expression of views with which the majority may disagree. Public attitudes to homosexuality have changed extraordinarily rapidly in this country. Not everybody approves of homosexuality, still less of same-sex marriages, but, as we have seen across the western world, the majority of the public now approve of homosexuality. That, in my view, has been a welcome change, and it
	seems increasingly clear that a majority are in favour of same-sex marriage. That trend is reflected across the western world. Since the vote on Second Reading of the Bill in February, two nations have passed same-sex marriage legislation, New Zealand and France, and last week two more states in the United States of America passed such legislation.
	Attitudes are changing fast, but there are people who do not agree. It should be possible for them to disagree reasonably, but not in a way that is hateful or goes beyond the bounds of the proper exercise of free speech. That is the balance that we need to strike. My hon. Friends should remember that if a child in school is gay, just to hear that their teacher disapproves of homosexuality is, believe me, tough enough to hear. Their teacher is free to say to them that being gay is wrong or that homosexual conduct is wrong and the House is asking for a licence to enable that teacher to say that, but do not underestimate how difficult that will be for the child to hear. We must take care that in providing these protections for the exercise of conscience, we do not do a great injustice and allow the continuation of language and attitudes that have caused a great deal of unhappiness for a long time.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr Speaker: Order. May I point out to the House that there is much interest, but it is only right that there should also be an opportunity for those on the Front Benches to set out their position? There is a balance to be struck. I am keen to accommodate everybody and I am in the hands of the House. Members need to help me to help them to help each other.

George Howarth: Throughout this debate I have made a practice with my constituents of arguing that whatever our views we should express them with respect and sensitivity. In that context it is a pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs (Nick Herbert), who made his case very well.
	The speech made by my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne North (Catherine McKinnell) was a model of how to put that case in a balanced way and without causing offence while, at the same time, arriving at a conclusion. I congratulate her on doing so.
	The hon. Member for Aldershot (Sir Gerald Howarth) refused to give way to me because my previous intervention, he claimed, had been “silly”. I must say that to be called silly by the hon. Gentleman, given the speech he made, brings to mind an expression involving pots and kettles. I do not believe that my intervention on the hon. Member for Gainsborough (Mr Leigh) was in the least bit silly. If the argument is that a person can exercise religious conscience by teaching in any way, right across the spectrum, then it would be perfectly reasonable, were the get-out clause to be introduced, for a science teacher to teach creationism. I can think of a dozen more examples where that could apply.
	The fact is that we have a national curriculum. We teach bodies of knowledge that are specified and known. There is the opportunity, certainly in faith schools—I am sure the Minister will confirm this later—to say, “This is the legal position on same-sex marriage, but the Church’s teaching is this.” It seems to me that the
	concerns expressed by the hon. Member for Aldershot are covered by that statement, as I am sure will be confirmed. In fact, he was—unintentionally, I am sure—slightly disingenuous. He read out a statement from the Church of England indicating that a future Government could of course repeal that or change the regulations. That applies to all legislation. It could be argued that no legislation should be passed because it might be changed in future.

Gerald Howarth: rose—

George Howarth: Unlike the hon. Gentleman, I will give way.

Gerald Howarth: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for giving way, because I meant no slur on him. He and I have worked together, not least on the Armed Forces Bill many years ago, and I have great respect for him—after all, he has a splendid surname. The principal point made in the Church of England submission was that there is “residual unclarity”. I am not sure whether “unclarity” is a word in the dictionary, but we know what is meant.

George Howarth: I am glad the hon. Gentleman has sought to give that clarification, but in fact it has not in the least changed the argument I am making. I think that that argument is disingenuous.
	I will finish with another point the hon. Member for Aldershot made. He chose to introduce into his speech the old chestnut of political correctness. Political correctness, as far as he is concerned, seems to be anything he does not agree with. If someone does not agree with him, it is because they are pursuing political correctness. He referred to conversations he has had with constituents. I accept that his constituency is dramatically different from mine, but I must say—I am sure that other right hon. and hon. Members will agree—that it is very rare that constituents ever complain to me about political correctness. In the handful of conversations I have had on that, usually at election time and in heated conversations in the town centre or on a doorstep, I have asked, “What exactly do you mean by political correctness?” I will not quote some of the responses I have had, but I must tell the hon. Gentleman that when people use the term as a defence, it usually means they are unable to use inflammatory or incendiary language when discussing some subjects. It is a very easy phrase to use as a defence, but I find that it is often applied to protect people from being penalised for holding grotesque views.
	I regret that the hon. Gentleman decided to accuse me of being silly. I decline to enter into any kind of tit-for-tat discussion, other than to say that I do not think that he proved his case with his speech or enhanced his argument by making it.

Simon Hughes: I will make a short contribution, in the same vein, I hope, as the last three. I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne North (Catherine McKinnell) for her extremely helpful and sensitive contribution and to my right hon. Friend the Member for Arundel and South Downs (Nick Herbert). I hope that those listening to the debate will draw some obvious
	conclusions: not all gay people take a strict view that everything in this set of proposals is absolutely perfect and that there are no questions; not all straight people think that the Bill is a terrible abomination; not all Christians share the view of the hierarchy of the Roman Catholic Church or the Church of England; and not all people who do not have faith might not have problems with the Bill. I hope that we have got across the message that the debate is much more complicated.
	I have three relevant interests. First, I have struggled with the issue of sexuality since I was a teenager, like my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol West (Stephen Williams). I remember that at school it was not an easy issue in the slightest. Everybody knew that there were gay people at school, but it was never taught or spoken about formally. Secondly, I am chair of the board of governors of a Church of England primary school. Thirdly, I am a trustee of a Church of England secondary school. We have excellent teachers who do their jobs very well, but I have to say that there is still some nervousness.
	The Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport very courteously appeared before the Joint Committee on Human Rights last week. She knows that there is still some nervousness that the safeguards are not yet sufficient, and that nervousness is still felt by the Church of England formally and by the Roman Catholic Church. I think my right hon. Friend the Member for Arundel and South Downs was very fair when he said that he, too, is looking for some reassurance that teachers will have the protection of being able to get the balance right and to teach that God loves everybody irrespective of their sexuality, whether they are 11, 14 or 17, but that the Church should be able to say not that homosexuals are sinners but that it takes a different view on who should be married and that civil partnerships or unions are fine but same-sex marriage is not.
	There is still a lot of prejudice to confront. Only yesterday a member of a church in my constituency told me that anyone who is gay is defective. We still have to challenge that sort of prejudice, which thinks than an individual can do something about being gay and that it is easy to deal with. I am just asking for a little reassurance—or perhaps more than a little—from the Minister on the issue of guidance for schools. The churches do not yet think that we have the necessary protection, so I am sympathetic to the amendments, although I have not signed them. I hope that the House will take them seriously.

Fiona Mactaggart: I might be the only Member in the House who was a primary school teacher when section 28 was in force. I am concerned that in this debate we are thinking much more about the conscience rights of teachers, rather than the rights of children. In my class there was a child who was being brought up by same-sex partners, but I could not talk about her family because of section 28. We must ensure that the rights of children being brought up by same-sex partners are as protected as teachers’ rights of conscience.

Simon Hughes: I absolutely share the hon. Lady’s view and am grateful to her for that prompt. I was here when clause 28 was being debated and opposed it on the record, including in Committee, where I served with my hon. Friend the then Member for Roxburgh and
	Berwickshire, now Lord Kirkwood of Kirkhope. We opposed it and spoke and voted against it. I understand exactly that hope. It is absolutely important that we do not prevent the discussion of homosexuality and different sexuality in the context of a loving and supporting school. I absolutely share her perfectly proper view and believe that I have always been as consistent on that position as she has.
	My second question is about public officials. I have not signed new clause 2 but I have signed new clause 3, with which my right hon. Friend the Member for Arundel and South Down is also sympathetic. There is a difference between saying to somebody, if this Bill is passed, “The law of the land says there are same-sex marriages and you can’t expect to be a public official and not carry them out”, and expecting somebody who is currently a registrar, having taken the job not knowing that there would ever be same-sex marriages, to perform them. The transitional new clause is a good one, and I ask the Government to accept it, or something along those lines.

Mark Durkan: Like the right hon. Gentleman, I voted against Second Reading and the programme motion because we wanted to test these and other issues. Is he aware that if the new law were extended to Northern Ireland there would be a big difference between new clause 2 and new clause 3, because new clause 2 would lead to people being asked about their religious beliefs during recruitment?

Simon Hughes: That is why I ask the Minister to look at this issue. We do not yet necessarily have the right balance.
	We must have free speech. People may still be arrested because of, or quizzed about, what they say. People should be able to say that they think that homosexuality is wrong or right and whether this Bill is appropriate. Although the Committee did a good job, as has another Committee in taking evidence, out there in the real world a lot of people think that there is not yet sufficient protection for people in expressing their views. I hope that Ministers will give thought to that to see how we can better protect the freedom of speech that people wish for.

Jim Shannon: First, let me say unequivocally that I am opposed to same-sex marriage, as most Members will know; it is not a secret. I am here to speak on behalf of the many millions of people with religious views who also oppose it. Specifically, I want to speak to new clauses 3 and 4.
	New clause 3 deals with marriage registrars. As the hon. Member for Cardiff South and Penarth (Stephen Doughty) said, there have been similar changes to the law in lands across the whole of Europe and, indeed, all over the world, so precedents have been set. In Holland, protection of the religious views of registrars on same-sex marriage is enshrined in the law. The Dutch courts recently ruled that registrars should not be compelled to solemnise same-sex marriages against their conscience if they were employed as registrars before the law was introduced. A month or two ago, the hon. Member for Congleton (Fiona Bruce) and I went to an event in Portcullis House where people on a panel gave their legal opinions. One person said that marriage registrars
	would not be covered by the new law, while the other two people said that they are covered. We are very conscious of the Ladele case. The Church of England has produced a paper in which it is very clear about its position on marriage registrars.
	I want to talk about the importance of freedom of speech for all. Unless an amendment such as new clause 4 is made, freedom of speech could be unduly restricted. It is difficult to be comprehensive about the circumstances that may give rise to a breach of freedom of expression as a result of such detrimental treatment. However, there is a real danger that a teacher, for example, might be accused of discriminating against a person because he or she has expressed a view against same-sex marriage. There is a risk that employees might be limited in their freedom of expression inside and outside the workplace because their criticism of same-sex marriage could be considered to be unlawful discrimination based on sexual orientation under the Equality Act 2010. This is a particular danger in the context of education, where a teacher may criticise same-sex marriage inside or outside the classroom and be found to have discriminated as a result. These are very important issues that we must be concerned about.

Jonathan Reynolds: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Jim Shannon: If the hon. Gentleman is very quick.

Jonathan Reynolds: We dealt with this in some detail in the Bill Committee, and I recognise that it is one of the principal issues that has been discussed today. It is already clear that someone can express a view—a personal opinion—to which no one would have any objection, but if they did so in a way that bullied or stigmatised, or in any way went beyond what is reasonably acceptable, they would be going too far. This is no different from many of the issues that teachers deal with every single day. On all those issues, yes, we issue guidance, but we never do anything as prescriptive as putting into primary legislation certain rights and responsibilities that would be unacceptable in any other field.

Jim Shannon: The hon. Gentleman and I clearly have a difference of opinion; he will not be surprised about that. In the Bill Committee, we heard that in a poll 40,000 teachers had expressed concern about this. We cannot ignore that number of teachers.
	The danger is made more real in the light of the case of Stewart v. Cleveland-Guest (Engineering) Ltd, where the court interpreted
	“discrimination on the grounds of sex”
	as including some conduct that would fall into the category of “harassment”. Therefore, by analogy, the use of so-called offensive language may be held to amount to sexual orientation discrimination. Moreover, under EU anti-discrimination law, the European Court of Justice held in the case of Firma Feryn that offensive statements may sometimes amount to discrimination. John Bowers QC has raised similar issues in his advice to the Coalition for Marriage. Members heard the same legal opinion expressed in the Bill Committee, as I did in the seminar that I went to with the hon. Member for Congleton.
	The Secretary of State has responded to these concerns by saying that her clear understanding is that
	“discussion or criticism of same sex marriage would not be ‘of itself’ discrimination under the current law.”

William McCrea: Does my hon. Friend believe that if a teacher were taken to court and said that the Secretary of State has suggested that they should be protected, the court would find that sufficient?

Jim Shannon: My hon. Friend is absolutely right; we need this protection, and it must be enshrined in legislation by this House to ensure that it means something. We cannot just depend on an interpretation that some people might have.
	The Secretary of State continued:
	“This would only happen if the discussion or criticism took place in an inappropriate manner or in a context which resulted in discrimination against, or a detriment to, a particular pupil or group of pupils.”
	She said that the same is true of discussion or criticism of same-sex relationships generally, and concluded:
	“Nothing in the Bill affects people’s ability to hold and express their belief that marriage should be between a man and a woman.”
	However, this assurance fails sufficiently to protect freedom of expression, as my hon. Friend suggested.

David Simpson: Perhaps we should go further. For example, is there protection of freedom of speech for preachers who fundamentally believe that the scriptures teach that such things are wrong?

Jim Shannon: My hon. Friend is right: we desperately need that protection.
	Other questions are likely to arise, such as whether the expression of a view on the superiority of opposite-sex marriage to same-sex marriage will be regarded as resulting in detriment to a particular group of people—namely, those who are homosexual or who are raised in families in which the parents are in a same-sex marriage. The answer is quite possibly yes. There is therefore likely to be a chilling effect on freedom of speech in particular contexts. The case of Smith has already shown a marked move in that direction. He was, as the hon. Member for Gainsborough (Mr Leigh) said, deemed to have discriminated against same-sex couples after he wrote a comment on his Facebook wall. Surely hon. Members do not intend there to be such a chilling effect on freedom of speech.
	One of the ways in which this can best be addressed is by putting the Secretary of State’s reassurances in the Bill.

Geraint Davies: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Jim Shannon: I am sorry but I cannot.
	That can be done via new clause 4, which would ensure that freedom of expression is protected by stating that discussions of same-sex marriages cannot be regarded as unlawful discrimination for the purposes of the Equality Act 2010. I commend the new clause to the House and ask Members to support it.

Tony Baldry: Much of this debate has revisited the issues that we discussed on Second Reading, but we need to put that into context. On Second Reading, I voted against same-sex marriage, as did many colleagues, but the House voted for it. It is in the interests even of those who voted for it and want this Bill to be passed that that we get this right.
	As my right hon. Friend the Member for Arundel and South Downs (Nick Herbert) correctly stated, the Church of England acknowledges that the quadruple locks that the Government have introduced will give protection not only to the Church of England but to other faith groups. We are grateful for that. The Government have delivered on what they said, which is that no faith group will be obliged to celebrate same-sex marriages if they do not wish to do so.
	The new clauses seek to ensure that down the line, if and when the Bill is passed, we do not find ourselves in situations that no one would want. The Government have tabled further amendments and I am grateful to them for amendment 23, which will protect ministers of religion employed by secular organisations, such as hospital and university chaplains, who do not wish to carry out same-sex marriages from claims being made against them personally under the employment provisions of the Equality Act 2010.
	I ask my right hon. Friend the Minister to reflect on two issues between now and when the Bill goes to another place. First, on the guidance given in schools, if the Bill is enacted, Church of England schools will, of course, fulfil the duty to teach about the factual nature of marriage in its new legally redefined form. However, there is uncertainty about how that will interact with the continuing need for schools to reflect their religious ethos in their sex and relationship education. All we are suggesting—there should not be a great divide on this—is that in order to ensure that schools can continue to teach an understanding of marriage that is consistent with their religious foundations, this Bill should amend the Education Act 1996 to ensure that any guidance issued by the Secretary of State must take account of the religious character of the school. That is not asking for much, but it will give clarity and I hope that my right hon. Friend will reflect on it.

Geraint Davies: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Tony Baldry: No, because others want to get in.
	My right hon. Friend the Minister, who supports the Bill, will not want it to have unintended consequences six or nine months or a year down the line. That would not help anyone.
	Secondly, reasonable expressions of opinions or beliefs on the nature of marriage ought not to be the subject of claims against individuals under existing discrimination or harassment provisions in the Equality Act. As my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Mr Leigh) has pointed out, some high-profile cases have highlighted the potential risk in the workplace, and I do not think that any hon. or right hon. Member feels comfortable about the details of such cases. All we are suggesting is that if the Equality Act were amended to put it beyond doubt that someone’s expression of an opinion on or belief in traditional marriage did not of itself—I accept
	entirely that context and the way in which views are expressed are important—amount to discrimination or harassment of another, that will provide reassurance and a degree of legal protection for both employers and employees who express their views in a reasonable way.
	I hope that my right hon. Friend the Minister will agree that those suggestions will ensure that the Bill, if enacted, will not cause division in the country—nobody wants that—and that it will work. I hope he will not say that everything is covered, but that he will reflect on today’s contributions and that, when the Bill goes to another place, he will give the specific clarity and reassurance needed to help improve the Bill, from anyone’s point of view, if it is passed.

Robert Flello: I have about five minutes to make a 10-minute speech, so I hope that hon. Members will forgive me if I do not take any interventions. I wish to discuss protection from compulsion and the meaning of “compelled”. I would have liked to have spoken to new clause 7, on protection from legal proceedings, and amendment 4, but time is against me.
	The Government have sought to reassure religious individuals and organisations that they will not be required in any circumstances to conduct same-sex marriages if they object to them. Clause 2 provides one of the main ways in which the Government have sought to make good on that reassurance by giving protection from compulsion. The term “compulsion” is, therefore, central to the protection provided by the Bill for religious individuals and organisations, and constitutes one part of the Government’s widely publicised quadruple lock.
	At first sight, the term might appear wide-ranging and comprehensive, which is what the Government would have us believe. However, in reality, the protection may be very narrow in scope, because there is no definition of “compelled” in the Bill. This omission creates uncertainty and potentially limits the scope of the protection afforded by the clause. Although the recognition that protections are necessary is welcome, the Bill does not adequately address the problem. Without further clarification, this may turn out to be not much of a lock at all.
	New clause 8 and amendment 5 are identical, but they relate to different parts of the Bill. They would clarify the meaning of “compelled” for the purpose of clause 2 and thus ensure that the lock provides the intended protection. The need for clarification was made all the more pressing when the Minister said in Committee that the word “compelled” was
	“absolutely not borrowed from the Matrimonial Causes Act.”––[Official Report, Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Public Bill Committee, 28 February 2013; c. 280.]
	That made it unclear from where, if anywhere, the word “compelled” has been borrowed. Apart from the Civil Partnership Act 2004, in which the word is used but the scope is much narrower than in this Bill, the obvious source was section 8 of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1965, which uses the term in a similar way to this Bill.
	If the word was not borrowed from the 1965 Act, perhaps we should consider other sources from which it may have been borrowed. According to case law, which is limited, compulsion seems to provide protection only from the imposition of criminal penalties—for example, individuals are protected from being compelled not to
	incriminate themselves. Clause 2 as drafted, therefore, may not provide protection to religious individuals and organisations from civil legal penalties; may not prevent public bodies from treating religious organisations less favourably if they decide not to opt in to providing same-sex marriage; and may not protect religious organisations from the threat of other legal actions, such as judicial review, if they decide not to opt into same-sex marriage. For example, a religious organisation could be refused contracts, denied the use of spaces such as halls or denied funding in an attempt to compel it to opt in to providing same-sex marriages. The protections in clause 2 may in reality be narrow in scope and provide relatively little protection.
	The Minister has made it clear that the Government intend to provide greater protection than mere protection against criminal penalties. Indeed, in Committee the Minister said that clause 2 would have the effect of
	“preventing any type of conduct that would have the effect of forcing a person to do something protected under that clause…The imposition of any penalties on or subsequent unfavourable treatment of a religious organisation or individual in order to compel that organisation to opt in to same-sex marriage is already unlawful under the Bill”.––[Official Report, Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Public Bill Committee, 28 February 2013; c. 280.]
	The assurances are welcome: it is comforting to know that that is the Government’s intention. However, clause 2 does not seem to provide that level of protection.
	I would love to speak at further length on this issue but, given the time and the fact that at least half a dozen more Members want to speak to this group of amendments, I will move to a conclusion. I could go through a long list of areas that need to be adequately addressed. I urge the Minister to accept new clause 8, but if he does not do so I hope we will be allowed to test it in the Lobby, because even people who support the Bill—my position is clear—want to ensure that such fundamental protections are in place.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr Speaker: Order. May I just explain that the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) on the Opposition Front Bench must start his speech no later than 6.40 pm?

Andrew Selous: I rise in support of new clause 5, which says that
	“no person should suffer any detriment in respect of the holding or the reasonable expression”
	of a belief in marriage as that between a man and woman.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Stourbridge (Margot James) has reminded the House of the hatred, abuse, aggression and, indeed, the discrimination that she and others have suffered. That was wrong, so it is with humility that I ask her to bear in mind that others who take a contrary view to hers on the Bill may also find themselves subject to discrimination.
	The question is this: should there be space in public life for people who hold to the current definition of marriage? That is not a theoretical question. The case of Adrian Smith has already been discussed. I will not go through it again, because time is short, but I remind hon. Members that he was a dedicated local authority housing officer who then worked for a housing association
	and was very well thought of. He served everyone, regardless of their situation, but he lost his job because of private remarks on his private Facebook page, and he is now doing charitable work in Africa because his job was taken away from him. The hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne North (Catherine McKinnell) said in her excellent contribution that she hoped that people will be dealt with in an inclusive and tolerant way. I say to her, with great respect, that I hope she would want such inclusiveness and tolerance to be given to people such as Adrian Smith, who did not receive it.
	I say to colleagues on the Government Benches that unless we get the legislation right, this issue will run and run until 2015 and will keep coming back. I gently remind colleagues on the Opposition Benches that no less a campaigner for homosexual rights than Peter Tatchell supported Adrian Smith. He did not agree with his views, but believed passionately in his ability to state them and thought it wrong that his job was taken away, as was that of Rev. Willie Ross, the chaplain to Strathclyde police. It is such things that we must guard against.

Chris Bryant: I want to start by paying tribute to the hon. Member for Enfield, Southgate (Mr Burrowes). Although I disagree with him passionately on every element of the Bill, I none the less enjoyed sitting on a panel with him at a school in his constituency to tackle the problem of homophobic bullying in the area. I pay tribute to the work that he has done on that issue.
	I understand that many people of religion disagree fundamentally with every element of the Bill. I hope that one day they will be amazed that they ever held those views. Some have said that the Church used to support slavery and that it no longer does. A better analogy might be the Church’s attitude to the role of women and, for that matter, women in marriage 100 years ago, compared with its views today. For those who have a strong a religious bent, I note that the Church of Scotland has voted today to allow homosexual clergy. I think that Churches will change and I do not want to lock them in so many ways that they are not able to do so.
	I and my hon. Friends believe that equality under the law is a vital principle. The Equality Act 2010 is a subtle and intelligent piece of drafting which ensures that people’s religious belief is as protected as their sexual orientation. I worry about some of the new clauses and amendments before us, because they would upset that balance.
	Hon. Members have referred to the chilling effect of what they call “political correctness” and of this kind of legislation. I say simply that if they look around the world and listen to the experiences of many gay and lesbian children in schools, they will see that hateful speech is alive and well. That is why a gay or lesbian child is six times more likely to commit suicide than a heterosexual child. We need to take seriously the fact that the language that people use merely because they oppose same-sex marriage adds to that sense of hatred and unpleasantness. To make the point, one has only to mention the names of Stuart Walker, who was burned to death only a few years ago for being gay, and Jody Dobrowski, who was murdered not far from this House.
	I want to deal with the new clauses and amendments. New clause 1, to which many hon. Members have referred, is fundamentally ill-conceived. I do not doubt
	that some people are concerned about what teachers will be able to teach in schools. However, some of the understandings of teaching that I have heard this afternoon are completely misplaced. The hon. Member for Aldershot (Sir Gerald Howarth), belted knight that he is, elided preaching and teaching. My fundamental point is that not much teaching should be preaching. That is the experience in every religious school in this country. Such schools want people to embrace the central understanding of every religion, which is that conscience trumps everything else. If that is the case, why would they want people to adhere to a line or to be indoctrinated? They would not. They want people to learn how to understand the facts and the world in which they live so that they can make good decisions for themselves.
	The Education Act 1996 states very clearly:
	“The Secretary of State must issue guidance designed to secure that when sex education is given to registered pupils at maintained schools…they learn the nature of marriage and its importance for family life and the bringing up of children”.
	I do not think that anybody disagrees with that. Secondly—and this is vital to the point that some hon. Members have made—it states that pupils must be
	“protected from teaching and materials which are inappropriate having regard to the age and the religious and cultural background of the pupils concerned.”
	Therefore, the Act already embodies precisely what new clause 1 seeks to achieve.
	Where new clause 1 fails is that it undermines the next bit of the Act, which states:
	“In discharging their functions under subsection (1) governing bodies and head teachers must have regard to the Secretary of State’s guidance.”
	The new clause would make the Secretary of State’s guidance completely and utterly irrelevant.
	The guidance is extremely balanced. It states:
	“Within the context of talking about relationships, children should be taught about the nature of marriage and its importance for family life and for bringing up children. The Government recognises that there are strong and mutually supportive relationships outside marriage. Therefore, children should learn the significance of marriage and stable relationships as key building blocks of community and society. Teaching in this area needs to be sensitive so as not to stigmatise children on the basis of their home circumstances.”
	That applies equally to children who are gay or who have gay family members and to those who grow up in a religious background and do not want to be stigmatised on the basis of their religion.
	I say to those who support new clauses 2 and 3 that everybody should be equal under the law. How can somebody who turns up at a register office be told that the registrar will not marry them just because of their sexuality?

Fiona Bruce: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Chris Bryant: I will not give way to the hon. Lady if she does not mind. I would normally be very generous, but there is not much time.
	A registrar is there solely to register that which is lawful. They are paid by all taxpayers, not just by some taxpayers. If Parliament decides that same-sex marriages
	are lawful, how can it be right for somebody to be rejected? Why do we not introduce a clause that says that sextons, who are public employees, can refuse to bury suicides, or that a registrar can refuse to marry a divorcee? Of course we have never done that, because we believe that everybody should be treated equally under the law. How can we say that commercial enterprises, such as bed and breakfasts, cannot discriminate in the provision of goods and services, but that the state can discriminate in the provision of marriage services? I hope that hon. Members will think twice about supporting those new clauses.
	Likewise, hon. Members should think twice about supporting new clauses 4, 5 and 6, which would effectively drive a coach and horses through the Equality Act 2010. I say to the hon. Member for Enfield, Southgate (Mr Burrowes) that there is a fundamental misconception about how the Act works. It does not protect the individual belief within religion; it protects the religion. It is not transubstantiation that is protected, but Catholicism. It is not a belief in the afterlife that is protected, but Christianity. It would be invidious to introduce any special provision that breached that.

Andrew Selous: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Chris Bryant: I will not, I am afraid, because we are very short of time.
	I gently suggest to hon. Members that the language that is used in some of the new clauses and amendments comes far too close for the liking of many people to a repeat of section 28. That did damage and we do not want to see it again.
	I urge Members not to drive a coach and horses through the equality legislation, which treats everybody equally, regardless of their religion or sexuality.

Hugh Robertson: The Government have listened extremely carefully on Second Reading, in Committee and today to the concerns that have been expressed. We will do everything that we can to provide the safeguards that are necessary to meet colleagues’ concerns, where those concerns are justified.
	Time is short because I believe that my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, Southgate (Mr Burrowes) wants to speak at the end of the debate, so I will quickly go through a few of the issues that have been raised. I ought to start by speaking to Government amendment 23, which will provide further protection for chaplains, such as hospital and university chaplains, who are employed by secular organisations. We made a commitment in Committee to look at that matter again and we have accepted that something further can be done. If the possibility of a marriage conducted by a chaplain is a benefit to employees offered in the context of that employment, a refusal to conduct such a service by a chaplain for an employee could conceivably fall foul of provisions in part 5 of the Equality Act 2010. We have therefore tabled amendment 23, which I believe puts the issue beyond doubt.
	Amendment 24 addresses a point raised by the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) about the Church in Wales and places a statutory duty on the Lord Chancellor. Once he or she is satisfied that the governing body of the Church in Wales has resolved that the law should be changed to allow for the marriage of same-sex couples according to its rites, he or she “must” by order
	make such a provision. That meets a commitment made in Committee and is a simple amendment that gives the Church in Wales the reassurance it sought.
	Let me turn to education, faith schools and new clause 1. I am extremely grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, Southgate for his speech, and hope to provide him with some reassurance. As he knows from Committee, no school or individual teacher is currently under a duty to promote or endorse a particular understanding of marriage, or would be as a result of the Bill or any revised future guidance. There are two clear reasons for that. First, the guidance is to secure that pupils
	“learn the nature of marriage and its importance for family life and the bringing up of children,”
	not to secure that teachers promote or endorse any particular view of marriage—in a sense it is the difference between explaining and promoting. Secondly, teaching in this area should always be balanced and sensitive to pupils’ backgrounds, which for many will be reflected in the school’s ethos. Guidance contrary to that ethos would not meet those criteria.
	If Members want further reassurance, I draw their attention to Lord Pannick, who I think is universally recognised to be an expert in this area. He said that it is “inconceivable” that a teacher could be lawfully disciplined for explaining to a child of an appropriate age that the law allows for same-sex marriage but that many religions—or indeed the teacher—do not believe in it. Finally, I draw the House’s attention to evidence given to the Committee by the Secretary of State for Education.
	However, it is clear from the number of hon. Members who have signed new clause 1 that many remain concerned about the level of protection for teachers. Although I am confident that the existing protections are sound, I am aware of concerns raised by the Church of England and mentioned by many hon. Members. With that in mind, I commit to the House that we will take the issue away and discuss it further with religious groups with whom we have been engaging throughout this process. We have been in close contact with all of them, and will consider all available means—including an amendment if necessary—to put the issue beyond any doubt in the other place.
	I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, Southgate for tabling amendment 50, which amends the Public Order Act 1986. We debated it at some length in Committee, and since then we have been thinking further to try and meet the concerns of many colleagues. Regrettably, the wording used in the amendment could—no doubt entirely unintentionally—give the impression that this aspect of criminal law is not to be applied even-handedly, and for that reason I cannot accept it as it stands. The provision is already there, however, and we fully understand the concerns and will work to table an amendment in the other place to try and satisfy them.
	Let me turn briefly to marriage registrars, although the news is rather less promising. We debated the issue at length in Committee and I am afraid my views rather hardened as the debate went on. I do not believe it is appropriate or right to allow marriage registrars to opt out of conducting same-sex marriages either permanently or on a transitional basis. Like it or not, they are public
	servants who should carry out the will of Parliament, and allowing exemptions according to conscience in my view sets a difficult precedent. Furthermore and crucially—this is important—the consultation with the national panel for registrars revealed absolutely no concerns whatsoever about conscience, and it would be unusual for the House to pass a new clause if the national representative body did not ask for such an exemption.
	On new clause 4, I know that some Members continue to have concerns that employees and organisations will risk action being taken against them under the Equality Act if they express the view that marriage should be only between a man and a woman. However, discriminating against someone because they hold such a belief, whether for religious or philosophical reasons, is unlawful under that Act, and I am happy to place that on the record.
	The case of Adrian Smith has been mentioned by a number of Members. He won his case in the end but his award was so small because he failed to bring the case within the time laid out in the employment tribunal. We looked into the case carefully in Committee, and the judge made it absolutely clear that had Adrian Smith applied in time, there was every reason to suggest that the tribunal would have been able to award him “substantial compensation”. The fact that the case was not brought in time led to that particular result.

Andrew Selous: I believe that Adrian Smith had to find £30,000—or it was found for him. What happens to poor people who suffer that type of discrimination and do not have that money?

Hugh Robertson: That example shows the danger of trying to make law on the basis of one individual case, particularly when—as in that case—the litigant failed to apply and follow the relevant legal processes, making it difficult to take further action on that basis.
	On amendment 3 to new clause 5, the important thing about the public sector equality duty is that it is a duty to think, rather than to achieve, a particular outcome. It could not possibly be used to justify an act of discrimination because of a belief by a public authority. New clause 6 seeks to make it explicit that the belief that marriage should be between a man and a woman may be a religious or philosophical belief, and that is indeed protected by the Equality Act 2010. Philosophical beliefs are protected if they are genuinely held, and we are entirely confident that the belief that marriage should be only between a man and a woman meets those criteria 100%.
	I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, Southgate would like a few minutes to wind-up the debate, so I will finish where we started. We ran through all these issues in Committee at some length and we will take note of the will of the House tonight and listen to it carefully. Where we find a need to act, we will take action.

David Burrowes: I appreciate there is limited time for a debate on serious issues, and what I believe is a consensus across the House—to ensure that religious liberty, and liberty in general, is properly protected. I welcome the recent good news: after weeks of toil in Committee we now have progress from the Government on new clause 1 and an undertaking given to the House that they will take away and seek to amend any guidance. That will
	ensure, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Arundel and South Downs (Nick Herbert) properly said, that the Bill is crystal clear and that we understand the balance, and further clarity is welcome. I recognise that as I am sure does the whole House.
	New clause 1 is not objectionable in any way and I encourage all hon. Members to read it and see that we are trying to make it clear that no teacher should be obliged to promote or endorse a view of marriage that is contrary to their belief or, as in the new clause, to the ethos of the school. I welcome that undertaking from the Minister and do not wish to take up the House’s time by pressing new clause 1 to a vote. I also welcome the Minister’s assurance that he is concerned, as are a number of hon. Members, to ensure that we have freedom of speech not just for Members but for our constituents, and that he will work on amendment 50 and the Public Order Act 1986.
	This has been called the live-and-let-live Bill, but we must ensure that it is not a live-and-let-live Bill only as long as someone agrees with the state’s redefinition of marriage.
	On the basis of the assurances that have been given, I will not press new clause 1 to a Division. However, on new clause 3, on registrars, there is a tradition and a precedent for conscientious objections. I therefore wish to press new clause 3 to a Division, along with new clause 6, which was signed by my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Mr Leigh). Equality legislation did not give justice to Adrian Smith, who had to rely on contract law. We need to ensure that the Equality Act 2010 is fit for purpose to protect belief in respect of marriage. Finally, I wish to press new clause 8 to a Division. It will ensure that the Catholic Church and others will not be compelled—we need a clear understanding of “compelled” so that they are not discriminated against for their decision to opt out of same-sex marriage.
	I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
	Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
	Proceedings interrupted (Programme Order, this day).
	The Speaker put forthwith the Questions necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded at that time (Standing Order No. 83E).

New Clause 3
	 — 
	Conscientious objection: transitional arrangments

‘(1) No person shall be under any duty, whether by contract or by statutory or other legal requirement, to conduct a marriage to which he has a conscientious objection if he is employed as a registrar of marriages on the date this Act comes in force.
	(2) For the purposes of this section, a “conscientious objection” exists where the refusal to conduct a marriage is only that it concerns a same sex couple, and is based on the person’s sincerely held religious or other beliefs.
	(3) This section is without prejudice to the duty of a registration authority to ensure that there is a sufficient number of registrars and superintendent registrars in that area to carry out the required functions.
	(4) In any legal proceedings the burden of proof of conscientious objection shall rest on the person claiming to rely on it.’.— (Mr Burrowes.)
	Brought up, and read the First time.
	Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—
	The House proceeded to a Division.

Lindsay Hoyle: Will the Serjeant at Arms investigate the delay in the No Lobby and see if he can unblock it?
	The House having divided:

Ayes 150, Noes 340.

Question accordingly negatived.

New Clause 6
	 — 
	Beliefs about marriage

‘(1) In the Equality Act 2010, after section 10(3), insert —
	“(4) The protected characteristic of religion or belief may include a belief regarding the definition of marriage as being between a man and a woman.”.’.—(Mr Burrowes.)
	Brought up, and read the First time.
	Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.
	The House divided:
	Ayes 148, Noes 339.

Question accordingly negatived.

New Clause 8
	 — 
	Domestic protection for persons

‘(1) For the purposes of this Act “compelled” includes, but is not limited to—
	(a) less favourable treatment of a person by a public authority,
	(b) the imposition of any criminal or civil penalty, and
	(c) any legal proceedings against a person as a result of a decision not to opt-in, conduct, be present at, carry out, participate in, or consent to the taking place of, relevant marriages.
	(2) Expressions used in this section have the same meaning as the expressions used in section 2 of this Act.’.—(Mr Burrowes.)
	Brought up, and read the First time.
	Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—
	The House divided:
	Ayes 163, Noes 321.

Question accordingly negatived.

Clause 2
	 — 
	Marriage according to religious rites: no compulsion to solemnize etc

Amendment made: 23, page3,line43,at end insert—
	‘( ) In section 110 of the Equality Act 2010 (liability of employees and agents), after subsection (5) insert—
	(5A) A does not contravene this section if A—
	(a) does not conduct a relevant marriage,
	(b) is not present at, does not carry out, or does not otherwise participate in, a relevant marriage, or
	(c) does not consent to a relevant marriage being conducted,
	for the reason that the marriage is the marriage of a same sex couple.
	(5B) Subsection (5A) applies to A only if A is within the meaning of “person” for the purposes of section 2 of the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Act 2013; and other expressions used in subsection (5A) and section 2 of that Act have the same meanings in that subsection as in that section.”.’.—(Hugh Robertson.)

Clause 8
	 — 
	Power to allow for marriage of same sex couples in Church in Wales

Amendment made: 24, page8,line17,leave out ‘may’ and insert ‘must’.—(Hugh Robertson.)

New Clause 16
	 — 
	Review of civil partnership

‘(1) The Secretary of State must arrange—
	(a) for the operation and future of the Civil Partnership Act 2004 in England and Wales to be reviewed, and
	(b) for a report on the outcome of the review to be produced and published.
	(2) Subsection (1) does not prevent the review from also dealing with other matters relating to civil partnership.
	(3) The arrangements made by the Secretary of State must provide for the review to begin as soon as practicable after the end of the five year post-commencement period.
	(4) The Secretary of State is not required by this section to arrange a review if, within the five year post-commencement period, the Secretary of State has already arranged a review which, in the Secretary of State’s view, deals with the same matters as the review required by this section.
	(5) Arrangements under this section may provide for the Secretary of State or one or more other persons to undertake the review, produce the report, or publish the report.
	(6) In this section “five year post-commencement period” means the period of five years beginning with the day on which this Act is passed.’.—(Maria Miller.)
	Brought up, and read the First time.

Maria Miller: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
	Amendment (a) to new clause 16, leave out from ‘practicable’ to end of clause and insert—
	‘and include a full public consultation.’
	New clause 10—Part 1 of the Civil Partnership Act 2004—
	‘(1) Part 1 of the Civil Partnership Act 2004 is amended as follows.
	(2) In section 1, subsection (1), leave out “of the same sex”.’.
	New clause 11—Part 2 of the Civil Partnership Act 2004—
	‘(1) Part 2 of the Civil Partnership Act 2004 is amended as follows.
	(2) In section 3, subsection (1), after “if—”, leave out—
	“(a) they are not of the same sex”.’.
	New clause 13—Repeal of Civil Partnership Act 2004—
	‘(1) The Civil Partnership Act 2004 is repealed.
	(2) Secondary legislation made under that Act shall continue in force unless it is subsequently amended or repealed, and any such amendments or repeals may be made by statutory instrument subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.
	(3) This section shall have effect from the date that the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Act comes into force.’.
	Amendment 10,in schedule 4, page26,line12, leave out paragraphs 3 and 4 and insert—
	‘Divorce
	3 (1) Section 1 of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 (divorce on breakdown of marriage) is amended as follows.
	(2) Leave out subsection (2)(a).
	Annulment of marriage
	4 (1) Section 12 of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 (grounds on which marriage is voidable) is amended as follows.
	(2) Leave out paragraphs (a) and (b).’.
	Government amendments 53, 51, 52 and 54.

Maria Miller: The Bill has a single important and straightforward purpose: to extend marriage to same-sex couples. I am delighted that the major political parties’ Front Benchers are unanimous in the view that that is an essential objective, and I am grateful for their unwavering support. It has been reassuring to see the other parties sharing my determination to ensure that nothing derails or delays this important measure.
	Marriage is the bedrock of our society, providing a stable foundation for families and communities. We want to ensure that people are not prevented from marrying, simply because they love someone of the same sex. But as a result of the Government’s determination to tackle this unfairness, other arguments have been put forward, including the idea of an extension of civil partnerships to opposite-sex couples. I have listened carefully to the different views of hon. Members on that issue, and I respect the strength of feeling of some Members. However, our principal objective here today
	is to open up marriage to a group of people who have never had that opportunity before, and I do not want anything to delay, deflect or distract from achieving that objective. New clause 10, which would shoehorn in an extension of civil partnerships, would run the risk of doing precisely that.

Caroline Lucas: Will the Minister explain why she thinks that the proposal would cause such a delay? Many of the consequential amendments about including civil partnerships for opposite-sex couples were considered when civil partnerships were first introduced, so why are we suddenly being told that this would create a huge delay?

Maria Miller: The hon. Lady is getting to the core of the issue in her own style. If she will bear with me, I will come to those matters later in my speech.
	Hon. Members will be aware that a large number of questions emerged when we looked in more depth at the issue of extending civil partnerships. After all, the Civil Partnerships Act 2004 contained more than 250 sections and 30 schedules and took more than two years to pass into law. It is an enormously complex area and the legislation cannot simply be transposed to opposite-sex couples.
	The hon. Lady asked for particular examples of the proposal causing delay. I can say to her directly that the Civil Partnership Act was designed specifically for same-sex couples, and a number of policy areas would have different applications to opposite-sex couples, especially areas such as adultery and consummation. If opposite-sex civil partnerships were to emerge, it is not clear whether pension rights would be in line with same-sex civil partnerships or with opposite-sex marriages. So if we were to go down this path now, a lot of fundamental policy questions would need to be answered. There would be questions of policy, of implementation and of financial implication.

Steve Brine: I am listening carefully to the Minister, as always. She says that it is not clear what the implication of such an extension would be for pension rights, so please will she explain where the figure of £4 billion has come from? We all understand that these are times of great austerity, and we do not want to vote for something that would cost the taxpayer £4 billion that we do not have.

Maria Miller: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions, my hon. Friend the Member for Thornbury and Yate (Steve Webb), attended the Joint Committee on Human Rights with me last week, and he has gone into a great deal of detail on this matter. He and his Department have estimated that the potential liability could be some £4 billion. It might be less, but at the moment we simply do not know. The cost of the equalisation of survivor rights in contracted-in and contracted-out schemes could account for about £90 million. We would also need to look at the equalisation of the rights of widowers with the rights of widows, at which point the bill would start to rack up. It would not be right for Parliament to legislate when so many issues are outstanding.

Tim Loughton: Of course, it would also not be right to be putting out spurious figures. The figure of £4 billion is not the result of an official cost impact assessment by the Department for Work and Pensions. It is an entirely hypothetical figure based on every cohabiting opposite-sex couple choosing to convert to a new civil partnership, with maximum pension liabilities. Is not that actually where the figure has come from?

Maria Miller: I really do thank my hon. Friend for his intervention, because he has made my point for me. At this point in time, there is of course no independent impact assessment because the issues have not been looked at in the kind of detail that hon. Members would expect before legislation is enacted. I hope that I will be able to change my hon. Friend’s mind about pressing his new clause to a vote. I hope that he will see that we need to get more evidence on this issue.

Julian Huppert: My right hon. Friend is arguing that there is a cost to the state whenever people get married or enter into a civil partnership. Is this part of a new austerity drive in which she will try to persuade people not to get married or have a civil partnership so that we can save on the pensions bill? That does not seem to be a very sensible approach.

Maria Miller: My hon. Friend seems to be driving at the same issue—namely, that we do not have the necessary information to hand. I think that hon. Members expect us to legislate based on fact, not on supposition or hypothesis. Much of what has been said on this matter has not really been based on facts. He is right to suggest that we want to encourage people to get married, but at the moment we do not know the exact implications of the proposal to extend civil partnerships. I think we would need to amend other legislation, including the Civil Partnership Act and the Gender Recognition Act 2004, which show that it is not just in the area of pensions where we would need to look at making significant progress in our understanding of the impact, as it would apply across a number of different pieces of legislation. It would be wrong for us to take decisions today without first having done that work.

Mike Freer: May I clarify that one issue preventing us from rushing into immediate implementation and explaining why there has to be a review is that of civil partner pension rights? In a heterosexual marriage, people accrue survivor spouse pensions from the date the pension scheme was joined, not from the date of the marriage. For a surviving civil partner, however, the partner might have been in the scheme since it was joined but the pension rights accrue only from the date the civil partnership became law. That is one of the basic problems that we need to review.

Maria Miller: My hon. Friend is right that there is an anomaly here, and these decisions were taken at the time of the Equality Act 2004. My point is a much broader one. Inasmuch as many assertions are being made that extending civil partnerships to opposite-sex couples could impact on many different areas of policy, my simple point is that we do not have the evidence base at the moment, and a great deal of work needs to be done.

Tony Baldry: Do not all these exchanges simply highlight the fact that extending civil partnerships to heterosexual couples was never consulted on and was never part of this Bill when it first came to the House? There has never been a proper opportunity for consulting on the matter. Let me make it clear that the test must surely be whether this is going to enhance the institution of marriage, and it is difficult to see how extending or setting up a rival competition to marriage will enhance the concept of marriage. Let me make it clear to my right hon. Friend, too, that the Archbishop of Canterbury and the Church of England strongly oppose extending civil partnership to heterosexual couples simply because it will further undermine marriage.

Maria Miller: I am pleased that my hon. Friend has taken the opportunity to put that on the record so that my hon. Friends know the position of important organisations such as the Church of England on this matter. I think my hon. Friend is right that the detail of the potential impact of these measures has not been looked at in the way I think Members would expect. An enormous amount of work would need to be done on the legal status of opposite-sex civil partners when they travel abroad or even respecting their legal status in the constituent parts of the UK. At the moment, we have not done that work. The hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant), who is in his place on the Opposition Front Bench, will know that it is important to have alignment both with Scotland and Northern Ireland on how to move forward; at the moment those issues have not been discussed. On each of those issues and more besides, it will take time to work out the detail and to get it right.

Mark Durkan: When the civil partnership issue came up on Second Reading and in previous stages, the Government’s argument was that it was not germane and that there was no real demand for it. The argument the Secretary of State is making now, however, implies that there could be too much demand for civil partnerships, with all sorts of costs and consequences. Which is it: either it is an issue or it is not; is there a demand or is there not a demand?

Maria Miller: That shows why we need a detailed look at the issue: we simply do not have the answer to the question about the potential liabilities around pensions. We may be able to say that there is a potentially significant liability, but we do not know whether this extension of civil partnerships would meet the needs of an important constituent group of heterosexual couples. We do not have that evidence base either. That is my answer to the question put by the hon. Member for Foyle (Mark Durkan).

Several hon. Members: rose—

Maria Miller: I give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Worthing West (Sir Peter Bottomley), but then I must make some progress.

Peter Bottomley: We greatly appreciate how the Minister is allowing the debate to evolve. One consideration that would need to be taken into account in respect of civil partnerships—whether it be in five years’ time or straight away—is some of the tax implications. We should think of the elderly orphan who gives up their
	own home and work to care for an elderly parent, lives in the parent’s home and then suffers capital gains tax when the parent dies. Alternatively, what of elderly siblings who have cared for each for 50 years and do not know how to save capital gains tax so that the one who survives can go on living in the home they have shared? Those are the issues where the potential unfairness needs attention, but I do not believe that we can solve such issues tonight.

Maria Miller: My hon. Friend raises an important issue, but it is not really the right place to discuss it in the context of this Bill. My message is that if we really want to make sure that we make progress on this Bill, in this place and in the other place, we need to focus on what it is trying to deliver, which is to make marriage available to people who have not had that opportunity before. The issues surrounding the extension of civil partnerships and the issue just raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Worthing West have a great deal of importance and legitimacy, but now is not the time or here the place to discuss them.

Margot James: Will my right hon. Friend give way?

Maria Miller: Will my hon. Friend allow me an opportunity to make a tiny bit more progress?
	As I said, now is not the time to legislate to extend civil partnerships to opposite-sex couples and, as the Second Church Estates Commissioner, my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Sir Tony Baldry) has said, this position is clearly supported by the Church of England and, indeed, by Stonewall. That is why I propose to undertake an immediate review of this area. I have moved new clause 16 to allow such a review to take place so that we can answer the many questions that my hon. Friends have raised this evening. The review will provide the answers on legal policy and implementation that are currently unanswered. Without those answers and without that evidence, it is not responsible for the House to legislate at this point.

Margot James: I thank my right hon. Friend for giving way. I believe in principle that civil partnerships should be available to heterosexual couples. However, I think that the nature of the debate over these short 20 minutes demonstrates that considerably more thought needs to be given to the proposal that the Minister outlines. May I ask her why this needs to take five years? Would she consider at least a slightly shorter time frame within which to consider these matters, which I readily accept require consideration outside this Bill?

Maria Miller: I know my hon. Friend will have studied the new clause in some detail, so she will see that there is an opportunity for us to conduct a review after five years. Equally, there are provisions within it for us to ensure that the review is immediate. That is what I would like to say today—that in bringing forward new clause 16, we would plan for an immediate review to take place. I was delighted to see the Labour party deciding to commit its support for this approach this afternoon, and the Government’s original amendment, which allows for an immediate review, could stand altered, but I am more than happy to accept the Opposition amendment to clarify the point if that will provide them with further comfort. I am very happy to do that.

David Burrowes: Given that the issue of extending civil partnership was raised in Committee and an amendment was tabled and voted on some months ago, why did the Government not provide any assessment of the impact of its going through Committee? In the time between then and now, what assessment has there been to ensure that the Government are fully informed of the costs so that they can decide how much is too much when it comes to a price for equality?

Maria Miller: My hon. Friend is right that we have, of course, done some preliminary work on this issue. The Committee concluded at the end of February, and he will know that through March and April we looked in detail at many of the issues raised. The Minister of State, Department for Culture, Media and Sport, my right hon. Friend the Member for Faversham and Mid Kent (Hugh Robertson) showed evidence of that in the proposals he made in the earlier debate this evening. The evidence on pensions is another matter I would draw to my hon. Friend’s attention. Now is not the time, however, for full discussion with officials and other groups that have a clear interest in how this might move forward. I encourage the hon. Members concerned to withdraw new clauses 10 and 11.

Rob Wilson: Will my right hon. Friend give way?

Maria Miller: I would like to make a bit of progress before my hon. Friend intervenes. If new clause 10 is not withdrawn, I urge Members to vote against it.
	I was pleased to learn that the Opposition would not support new clause 10. It would be a very odd state of affairs if the House supported an immediate review, and in the next breath prejudged the position and announced that it would vote in favour of an extension of civil partnerships. I am sure that that is not lost on the House, and that all Members want to proceed in a sensible fashion that has been thought through properly.
	New clause 13 takes a very different tack: it seeks to abolish the Civil Partnership Act. We believe that that would disadvantage those who are already in civil partnerships, not only in England in Wales but in other areas of the United Kingdom where this is a devolved matter. On that basis alone, I urge Members not to press the new clause to a vote.
	Amendment 10 seeks to make a substantive change to the way in which adultery and non-consummation are treated. The Bill does not need to make such changes for the purpose of opposite-sex marriages, and I think that we ought to look carefully at the implications of their removal as key concepts in marriage law. I therefore urge Members not to press the amendment.

Mark Field: Does my right hon. Friend accept that many of us—even on this side of the House—are firmly in favour of same-sex marriage, and voted and will vote for it on Second and Third Reading, but are none the less very concerned about the lack of equality that applies to civil partnerships? We want the Government to act on that with some urgency. However, we also want to make clear that those of us who would otherwise have supported
	some of the Government’s amendments are trying not to wreck the Bill but trying to make it better, and to ensure that the concept of equality applies to civil partnership as well as marriage.

Maria Miller: I entirely understand my hon. Friend’s intentions. I assure him that we intend to proceed swiftly with the review of civil partnerships, although we naturally want to take full account of discussions of the Bill in the other place. We would not want to pre-empt those discussions by embarking on a review before their conclusion, but we will certainly consider how we can proceed with a consultation speedily, given the strength of feeling.

Shaun Woodward: I do not for a moment doubt the Minister’s commitment to marriage between same-sex partners, but let me point out that her Department conducted, for the Government, a massive consultation exercise, and at the end of last year found that a majority of the public supported the extension of civil partnerships to opposite-sex couples. The Government, however, were not convinced. What will be different about this review? Will it be genuinely open, so that if a majority is again found to be in favour, the Government will introduce legislation to extend civil partnerships to everyone?

Maria Miller: I can certainly reassure the right hon. Gentleman that the review would be genuine and open. I would not undertake a review on any other terms. I think that this review will provide the sort of policy detail that was not provided by the earlier consultation. I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman would not want to be party to legislation that had not been subject to that degree of thought and detail. I can give him a strong undertaking that we will look carefully at the detail of policy implementation, and at how it would affect the various issues that we have already discussed. However, we simply cannot legislate on something for which we have no evidence base. It is important for us to understand what the demand is among individuals who might wish to embark on such an arrangement.

Simon Hughes: As one who supported civil partnership and voted for it, I want to be certain that the Minister understands that there are currently differences in law between civil partnership and marriage. It would be helpful if we could confirm that she and the Government understand that.
	I also want to make it clear that there is a strong wish for the two issues to be dealt with at the same time, not just among people who do not necessarily support same-sex marriage but among members of the gay lobby, such as Peter Tatchell, who think that equality in respect of marriage requires equality in respect of civil partnership as well. Will the Minister explain why those issues are not being dealt with at the same time?

Maria Miller: I agree with my right hon. Friend that there are differences between the concept of marriage and the concept of civil partnerships—by definition, given that they are set out in different pieces of legislation. However, I must take issue with what he says about equality. We are trying to create ways in which individuals who have never had access to marriage can have that
	access, at a time when those who are in heterosexual relationships already have it. There is no inequity, as such, in what we are trying to do. We are trying to right the inequity that prevents same-sex couples from having access to something which we know that society values very strongly.

Charles Hendry: I support the Bill because I believe in equality, but a direct consequence of that equality is a new inequality for heterosexual couples. That is why I think that we need to think about whether the issues can be considered at the same time.

Maria Miller: Let me gently point out to my hon. Friend that what we are trying to do is provide access to marriage for a group of people who have not had that access to date. It is clear that there is an inequality affecting individuals who are in same-sex relationships and who have not had access to marriage.
	We are not trying to create two tiers of marriage; we are trying to right a wrong of the past. It does not strike me as entirely logical to want to delay the Bill and give rise to more debate in the other place and more issues involving policy development in order to provide for something that straight couples would not necessarily want anyway. We do not have the evidence base that that would require, and the research that has been carried out so far suggests that we do not have a clear line of sight in terms of the end result.

Karl McCartney: My right hon. Friend is being very gracious in giving way. Does she not accept that there is an inequality in the fact that same-sex couples will have a choice between a civil partnership and a gay marriage, whereas heterosexual couples will not have that choice? Are not the Government creating that inequality?

Maria Miller: There is currently a glaring inequality, in that same-sex couples have no access to the civil marriage that those of us who are in heterosexual relationships take granted. That is the issue with which the Bill is designed to deal. What the review will do is examine the issue of civil partnerships in more detail to ensure that if there is a requirement for them, we can deal with it in a measured manner.

Christopher Chope: Will my right hon. Friend give way?

Maria Miller: I hope that my hon. Friend will bear with me. We have only a short time for this debate, and I want to end my speech so that others have a chance to contribute to it fully.
	Same-sex couples have waited for a very long time for the right to marry, and I think that they have waited long enough. Using the Bill as a vehicle for the extension—

Christopher Chope: Will my right hon. Friend give way?

Maria Miller: —as a vehicle for the extension of civil partnerships—

Christopher Chope: Will my right hon. Friend give way?

Mr Speaker: Order. I must gently say to the hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr Chope), who has had three goes at it, that there is no evidence at this stage that the Minister will give way. If she does not, he must not hector from a sedentary position—or even from a standing position. Is the Minister going to give way? No.

Maria Miller: Only because I want other Members to have an opportunity to speak, Mr. Speaker.
	I think that using the Bill as a vehicle for the extension of civil partnerships risks its progress, and that supporting the review proposed in new clause 16 will give us an opportunity to find an informed way forward—something that those on all sides of the argument can support.

Kate Green: We were grateful to you, Mr Speaker, for accepting our manuscript amendment (a) to new clause 16 this morning.
	Let me start by repeating what my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) made very clear in Committee: the Labour equalities team supports the principle of extending civil partnerships to opposite-sex couples. We recognise that it would provide equality before the law. It would also recognise the choice some opposite-sex couples want to make not to marry but none the less to formalise their relationship. As civil partnerships will rightly continue for gay and lesbian people under this legislation, it would ensure, too, that they are not perceived simply as some sort of residual arrangement pending everyone moving to same-sex marriage. We can expect that many existing civil partners will want their civil partnerships to continue; they will not want to regard the history of the past nine years as a history of second best.

Julian Huppert: Does the hon. Lady also agree that some people will still prefer to have a civil partnership now, even if marriage is available? This is not just about the history; there will be people who will still want a civil partnership in the future.

Kate Green: I entirely agree. There are many reasons why some couples may feel that the historical or religious connotations of marriage are not for them, but who none the less wish to make the public commitment to each other that gay and lesbian people already do through civil partnerships.
	Sadly, Ministers have until now been reluctant to recognise that the position they have been taking—in effect, privileging marriage—has led to the situation we are in now. There are a number of concerns about moving forward to regularise opposite-sex civil partnerships, but there is a complete absence of analysis of, and evidence for, the concerns Ministers have raised. Yet we have been raising the issue of the genuine concerns about opposite-sex civil partnerships ever since the introduction of this Bill.
	On the face of it, the anxieties highlighted by the Secretary of State today are not insignificant. On 14 May, her colleague the Pensions Minister, the hon. Member for Thornbury and Yate (Steve Webb), put a high potential price tag on the extension of civil partnerships to opposite-sex couples: the sum was between £3 billion and £4 billion. The Secretary of State has also suggested there may be international and devolution implications.
	The predicted costs involve some big and untested assumptions, however. We do not know how many opposite-sex civil partnerships will be formed. There is uncertainty about the number of public sector pension schemes that do not already allow a cohabiting partner to be a named recipient for survivor benefits. There is also uncertainty about the assertion that extending civil partnerships to opposite-sex couples will reopen the whole question of widowers’ pension entitlements. Following the Cockburn case, we might feel somewhat sceptical about that.

Anne Main: Given the hon. Lady’s principled support for the extension of civil partnerships to heterosexual couples, does she not have concerns that the proposal is a promise of jam tomorrow through a review, rather than a guarantee of the inclusion of heterosexual couples, which is what the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) said he wanted?

Kate Green: The hon. Lady is right about our concerns about unwarranted delay. That is why I tabled the manuscript amendment this morning. It enables us to move forward and reach a proper conclusion much more swiftly.
	While we support the principle of opposite-sex civil partnerships, we agree with the Government that the issues should be properly reviewed before Parliament reaches a decision. Indeed, we say they should have been reviewed already.

Geraint Davies: I agree with my hon. Friend. Does she agree that there is a large, and potentially massively increasing, constituency of people who may be interested in this, in particular couples with children, who have not chosen to make the jump into marriage but who might welcome a civil partnership? If we are to go along this path, we need to get things costed and get the detail right so that it fits their particular needs. We should therefore carry out the review and not delay equal-sex marriage.

Kate Green: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. It is important that we adhere to the principle and that we get the detail right so that we achieve the outcome we want, which is to offer the protections of civil partnership appropriately to opposite-sex couples and their families. That is why we have tabled manuscript amendment (a) to new clause 16. We believe the Government proposal for a review that would not even start until five years after the legislation had been implemented introduces an unnecessary delay, and we are very pleased that it appears there is now agreement to move to a swifter review.
	We also propose that the review must include full public consultation. There has been a degree of that in relation to the Bill. Although it was rather cursory, it did show support for the principle, but we want the public to have a full opportunity to express their views.

Caroline Lucas: There is, indeed, strong support for the principle. I welcome the review to the extent that it speeds up the process, but it should only be about the
	details; it should not be about the principle. The principle is about equality, and that is what should be enshrined in the Bill tonight.

Kate Green: I absolutely agree with the hon. Lady, and I hope the Secretary of State will take on board her comments.

Christopher Chope: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Kate Green: Yes.

Christopher Chope: I am grateful to the hon. Lady for giving way; she is, typically, demonstrating courtesy. Does she agree that the review should be carried out in time to enable any consequent amendments to be brought forward in the other place? Is she not amazed that the Government think this needs to take an enormous amount of time to achieve, when in France there is equal access both to civil partnerships and now to marriage?

Kate Green: It is very good to hear the hon. Gentleman holding up the situation in France as an example of the practice to which we should aspire, and I could not agree with him more. We see no reason for this review to be excessively protracted. Indeed, we think it can be conducted very swiftly. It would be welcome if it could be completed well before we have completed the passage of the Bill, so that we can take account of the outcome of the review and we can swiftly—indeed, within the next few months—make both opposite-sex civil partnerships and same-sex marriages available .
	This morning there were some who were concerned about the fate of this Bill if new clauses 10 and 11 were agreed to. We are anxious to ensure that same-sex marriages arrive on the statute book as swiftly as possible, and we know the Secretary of State is, too. We would not want anything to put that ambition and the Bill’s progress in jeopardy, but this morning it appeared that the failure of those on the Government Benches to reach a common position might do so. We are pleased that by this evening it had been recognised that the best way to deal with the concerns the Government have—late in the day—raised while also ensuring things are dealt with speedily is to introduce the most rapid review possible.
	I therefore hope Members will support new clause 16 as amended by manuscript amendment (a). I hope that they will also recognise that new clauses 10 and 11 are, if not wrecking amendments, at best premature and should not be supported, and that they will follow the Secretary of State in relation to the other new clauses and amendments.

Tim Loughton: An awful lot of rubbish has been spoken and reported in the media over the last few days. Not all of it has been attributed to me. There have been claims of wrecking amendments, of leadership bids, of Front-Bench mischief and of U-turns. Members will be forgiven for being in a state of some confusion as to where we have arrived at tonight, therefore.
	Let me explain what I can make out from the late amendments put before us. We appear to have a last-minute amendment from the Government to kick the whole issue into the long grass. The Government have now put the frighteners on the Opposition, who have tabled a
	last-minute manuscript amendment to a last-minute new clause on the basis of spurious figures and non-existent delay, aimed at kicking the new clauses into the slightly less long grass. We have now just heard from the hon. Member for Stretford and Urmston (Kate Green) that the Opposition would like the review to be done and dusted and to have reported before the Bill is passed, so that such a provision can be added through amendments to it. I do not think that that is the grubby deal that those on the Front Bench have negotiated and there is a degree of misunderstanding that must be clarified.
	Today we have also heard the Deputy Prime Minister urging hon. Friends in his party to vote against a measure that is party policy for the Liberal Democrats— but we have been there before. We have also had the extraordinary scene of certain hon. Members, who have signed up to new clauses 10 and 11 and have spoken in favour of them in other places, to opinion pollsters and in Committee, now being apparently prepared to do a complete volte-face by voting this evening against something with which they apparently agree in principle. I am very confused.

Mark Field: I hope that I will not add to my hon. Friend’s confusion, but does he not accept that the amendment proposed by the Opposition—even though it is late in the day—at least means that there will be some urgency about the issue of equality in civil partnerships, which is close not just to his heart but to mine? With that, we can at least begin to make some progress.

Tim Loughton: I hope that we have achieved something, in that a provision that the Government thought was not necessary only days and weeks ago has become a matter that merits review, albeit at least five years away and with no guarantee that it will take place. Now it has apparently become a bit more urgent. We seem to be moving in the right direction, but the extraordinary thing is that everyone seems to agree that the change is right in principle. If it is right in principle, it should be right in practice and this is the Bill through which it can be achieved.

Anne Main: Does my hon. Friend share my concern that tonight we will vote to enshrine an inequality in law with the hope that a review will redress it? Rather than voting for what people think is right in principle, we would be waiting for a review to see whether it is cost-effective.

Tim Loughton: My hon. Friend is right. The trouble is that, given that there has been such fast movement in various peoples’ positions, goodness knows what the position will be after the vote has taken place.
	I want to support new clauses 10 and 11, tabled in my name and those of other hon. Members on both sides of the House and on all sides of the argument, and in doing so I must oppose the last-minute Government new clause and the manuscript amendment from the Labour party. This is a Back-Bench debate—let us have a Back-Bench debate without Whips and party politics trying to put pressure on hon. Members to change their votes, which should be based on their free will.
	Let me be clear once and for all that the new clauses are not wrecking amendments. They are supported by passionate supporters of the whole Bill. If the new
	clauses are passed, they will remove some of the anomalies and flaws in the Bill and make it more palatable. If that is wrecking, I am not doing a very good job of it.

Tom Harris: Does the hon. Gentleman understand why there are those who are briefing the media and accusing him of tabling wrecking amendments, given his full-throated opposition to the principle of the Bill in the first place? It is hard to believe that his motivation is anything other than to stop the progress of the Bill when it gets to the other place. If that is not the case, he has been ill-used and ill-spoken of, but does he at least understand why people are reading that into his motivation?

Tim Loughton: I can understand why people are trying to cause mischief on that basis. I approach the new clauses in the expectation that the Bill will probably become law, whether I and other hon. Members like it or not. We must therefore plan on that basis. I think it could become better law if it provided for equality in civil partnerships which we could give to opposite-sex couples, and I now want to explain why.
	The idea was proposed in Committee three months ago by the hon. Member for Bristol West (Stephen Williams) and supported by the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant). Bizarrely, neither of them voted for it. In our witness sessions, it was strongly supported by experts such as Lord Pannick and Baroness Kennedy, who clearly said that they thought that the addition of the extension of civil partnerships would greatly improve the Bill. Supporters of the proposals have included those in favour of the Bill, those against it and those who have abstained. They have not just come out of nowhere. Several hon. Members have mentioned the Government’s consultation on the original Bill. Many people responded and 61% said that they were in favour of extending civil partnerships to opposite-sex couples. This is not an idea that we have cooked up at the last minute to wreck the Bill; the Government’s research shows that the public—our constituents, our voters—are in favour of it. However, the Government went into the subsequent production of the Bill completely and utterly ignoring the clear wish of the people as shown by their own consultation.
	There are two rationales, as far as I am concerned, for supporting the amendments. First, they will correct what is, I am sure, an unintended but glaring inequality that would result from the Bill in its current form. If the Bill goes through, as I expect, same-sex couples will be entitled to continue in a civil partnership, to take up a civil partnership or to take up the new form of marriage. Opposite-sex couples will have only the option of traditional marriage, albeit by a larger range of religious institutions. That is not fair. It gives rise to an inequality in what is intended to be a Bill about equalities. Secondly, a very positive reason for pushing forward with the amendments is family stability, and I will come to that in a minute. Highly divisive as the Bill has been, particularly on the Government Benches, surely that is one issue on which we can all agree and rally round.
	I acknowledge that the quadruple lock that the Government have put in the Bill largely does the job that they intend it to do. That is why many of the Church institutions have been reassured by the safeguards that they have been given. Earlier, we also heard about amendments that tried to give safeguards to people in public service who might fall foul of the legislation.
	Let me return to why people seem to be in rather a difficult position. ComRes carried out an opinion poll among 159 Members of this House—quite a large sample—and some 2,012 members of the public. Interestingly, that recent opinion poll found that 73% of hon. Members in this House support the amendments. Among Conservative Members, there was 72% support; among Labour Members, 76%; and among Liberal Democrats, 67%. If the amendments do not get the full backing of 73% of hon. Members tonight, what has changed in the space of just a few days, since that opinion poll was carried out in private?
	In 2010, an Office for National Statistics report said that there were almost 3 million—2,893,000, to be precise—cohabiting opposite-sex couples in this country. That is almost double the figure reported some 15 years earlier. Some 53% of all birth registrations are to married parents, but 31% are to unmarried parents who are living together, and 40% of unmarried couples living together choose to have children. Indeed, cohabitation is the fastest-growing form of family in this country, and we need to recognise that our society is changing, whether or not we approve.
	People choose not to get involved in the whole paraphernalia of formal marriage for a variety of reasons: it is too much of an establishment thing to do; it is too much of a religious institution for some, and even if done in a register office, it has religious connotations; there is a patriarchal side to it; it is a form of social control—there are a whole load of complex motives as to why many of our constituents do not go down the formal marriage route. They are mostly still in committed, loving relationships, but they have no way of demonstrating that in the eyes of the public and the law, if they do not want to go down the traditional marriage route.
	In Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol West (Stephen Williams) made a very good point about the common misconception that there is such a thing as a common-law wife or husband, as a woman typically finds out abruptly on the death of a partner, when there is a tax bill on the estate, and potentially on the family home. Even a couple engaged to be married have more rights than a cohabiting couple. I have received many e-mails and letters in support of this proposal, and one summed up the position:
	“I am 60 yrs and have been with my partner for over 20 years. We have two boys ages 16 and 18 yrs. Neither of us wish to get married but we would like to have the same rights as a married couple. We see the civil partnership as discriminatory towards us as a couple, especially as we have children. A great number of friends and acquaintances are in a similar position to ourselves and do not wish to be married although we are all in a lifelong family commitment. My other issue with this is that, as I am much older than my partner, I will probably die before her and she would not receive the same tax benefits as a married woman or those in a civil partnership, which in turn would be discriminatory towards our children.”
	Why should those who have chosen not to go for a traditional marriage not have the opportunity to have the same rights, responsibilities and protections in the eyes of the law that we rightly, and not before time, extended to same-sex couples back in 2004?
	My hon. Friend the Member for Bristol West referred to equalising same-sex and opposite-sex civil partnerships as achieving “parity of esteem”. I agree. I do not regard
	my conventional marriage of 20 and a half years’ standing to my wife as any more valid than a civil partnership, be it gay or, potentially, heterosexual; it is just different. However, there is a major plus to achieving equality of civil partnerships, and opening them up to opposite-sex couples: family stability, which the Government seem to have ignored completely, although it is something that we Conservative Members strongly support.
	The Prime Minister and supporters of the Bill say that they are huge fans of marriage, partly because it helps to create sustainable families and, particularly, stability for the children brought up in them. I agree, so should we not do more to achieve that stability for families who choose not to get married, but who might cement their relationship through the civil partnership route, giving them public recognition and, importantly, rights and responsibilities under the law?
	In 2012, the Relationships Foundation calculated the cost to this country of family breakdown at £44 billion—some £1,470 per year to every taxpayer, or 1.8% of gross domestic product. That is a big problem—a growing problem that is costly, financially and socially, in our society. Fewer than one in 10 married parents have split by the time a child reaches the age of five, compared with more than one in three of those who are cohabiting but not married, and 75% of family breakdowns involving children under five result from the separation of unmarried parents. The Centre for Social Justice has produced a raft of statistics showing that a child who is not in a two-parent family is 75% more likely to fall out of school and 70% more likely to be addicted to drugs, and is more likely to get in trouble with the law, be homeless, and not be in employment, education or training. We know that marriage works, but we also know that civil partnerships are beginning to show empirical evidence of greater stability for same-sex couples, including those who have children, be it through adoption, surrogacy or whatever. There is a strong case for believing that extending civil partnerships would improve that stability for many more families in different forms.

Angela Watkinson: My hon. Friend is making a compelling case for extending civil partnerships to opposite-sex couples. In fact, I have not detected any resistance to the idea in any part of the House, so there seems to be agreement that it would be beneficial. The point of argument is when it can be achieved, for the many reasons that he touched on. Benefits, pensions, inheritance and tax are very complex; it will take time to cost the proposal properly, rather than introducing it before we know exactly its implications.

Tim Loughton: I hear the point that my hon. Friend makes and it has been made before. I will come on to say that all that work was done in 2004. I am trying purely to mirror the sort of arrangements that were made back in 2004 when civil partnerships were introduced.
	If just one in 10 cohabiting opposite-sex couples were to enter a civil partnership, that would be some 300,000 or so couples and their children, giving them greater security, greater stability, less likelihood of family breakdown, better social outcome and better financial outcome. That surely is progress.
	One interesting witness, who has been named already in our deliberations in the witness stage, was Alice Arnold, who is in a civil partnership with Clare Balding.
	She is very much in favour of the Bill. I entirely respect where she is coming from. One thing she said was that when she is asked, “Are you married?” she has to say, “No, but—” because she is in a civil partnership, not what she regards as a marriage. There is currently a problem with civil partnerships. If someone fills in a form, goes for an interview or responds to a question and says that they are in a civil partnership, they are automatically admitting their sexuality which, for some people, is uncomfortable. If civil partnerships were extended to everybody, people could be in a civil partnership and their sexuality would not be questioned or questionable.
	There is a further application. Many people who have strong religious beliefs, particularly if they are Catholics, and have ended up getting divorced, which is in conflict with certain religious teachings, may not be inclined to get married again if they meet a new partner, because supposedly their Church believes they should be married for life. They would, however, in many cases be able to square that position by entering into a new formal commitment through an opposite-sex civil partnership. So there are a number of practical applications where civil partnerships for opposite-sex couples will achieve something very positive—not wrecking, but achieving something for which people have a requirement.
	Opposite-sex civil partnerships are not something cooked up in this country. Let us look at various overseas experiences. In South Africa the Civil Union Act 2006 gave the option for some same-sex and opposite-sex couples to register a civil union by way of a marriage or a civil partnership on the same basis. In France, as has been mentioned, the pacte civil de solidarité, or PACS, as it is known, was introduced in 1999 as a form of civil union between two adults of the same sex or the opposite sex, and now gay marriage has been added to that. Interestingly, 94% of PACS that took place in 2012 were between opposite-sex couples. Even more interestingly, in France one in 10 PACS has been dissolved, against one in three marriages ending in divorce. There is evidence to show that some of these civil partnerships have created greater stability, whether those are opposite-sex or same-sex partnerships.
	Many people would not want to do such a trade-off for religious reasons. We need to recognise that society is changing. What does not change is the desire to create as much stability as possible for couples and children in those families. In the Netherlands in 1998 registered partnerships were created for same-sex and opposite-sex partners which provide the same rights and responsibilities as married partners, except in relation to children, to do with overseas adoptions and so on. This is not rocket science—it already happens.
	I contend that a great deal of work was done at the time of the Civil Partnership Act 2004—complicated work, as the Secretary of State said, which took a while to bring into operation, but that work has been done. I want identical terms to apply, as applied back in 2004. The Government also say that the proposal would require big changes to lots of other legislation. Introducing same-sex marriage will require big changes to lots of other legislation; why cannot the two types of change be made in parallel?
	Last year, as we said, the Government consulted on the whole issue, as the right hon. Member for St Helens South and Whiston (Mr Woodward) reminded us, and a clear majority said that they were in favour of it. Surely
	the Government, as a contingency at least, have done some preparatory work on what would be involved if there was a call to change the law, as all the opinion polls show and as I am now calling for.
	It was reported in a newspaper this morning that one of the Ministers involved, in objecting to my amendment, had
	“said such a radical change must not be introduced in a ‘rush’. She added that civil partnerships should be reviewed once gay marriages had been operating for five years.”
	If we take it to 2019, civil partnerships will have been operating for almost 15 years, which seems more than enough time to gauge whether they are working and should be extended. I must say that there has been some pretty scurrilous and disingenuous last-minute scaremongering by certain parties on the Front Bench.

Shaun Woodward: I accept in good faith the hon. Gentleman’s remarks. He has obviously thought about the matter in some detail, so what is the maximum time frame in which he would instruct civil servants to conduct and complete such a review, and what process would he recommend by which the Government could bring forward the proposals to ensure that same-sex couples are not obliged to wait an undue period of time for the Bill to proceed?

Tim Loughton: There is a trade-off, because if the Bill goes through in its current form an inequality will be created and there will be a delay—we do not know for how long—for opposite-sex couples, who are unable to access civil partnerships, with no commitment that it will be addressed, while same-sex partners will be able to access marriages in fairly short order.
	I have a few more remarks to make on how quickly I think that can happen. I think that the whole argument about delay is a complete red herring. The cost of £4 billion is completely and utterly spurious. I asked for a Library note on the cost impact assessments done at the time of the Civil Partnership Act 2004. Part of it says that the cost to the Government was divided between total one-off fixed costs of £19.8 million for changes in administration and rising annual costs each year in both low and high take-up scenarios. The annual cost to the Government in 2010 was estimated at £1.5 million for the low take-up scenario and £3 million for the high-take up scenario, and that that would rise to £11.6 million and £22.2 million a year in each scenario by 2050. The components of the annual costs were state pensions for spouses and bereavement benefits for surviving civil partners, and public funding for civil partnership dissolutions. The note refers throughout to tens of millions of pounds, but nowhere near the figure in the billions that has been plucked out of the air with absolutely no empirical evidence and which was never intended as an official impact assessment from the DWP when the Pensions Minister made his statement to the Joint Committee on Human Rights last week.

Mark Field: Does my hon. Friend not see that the amendments proposed tonight, particularly from those on the Opposition Front Bench, would go a considerable way towards what he is trying to achieve? I share some of his concerns about the spurious figures in the billions that we all heard quoted on the radio this morning, which seem to have been plucked from the sky, and
	about the talk of a massive delay, but does he not realise that the urgency with which we are now looking at this, because of amendment (a), means that in the House of Lords there will be a rapid sense of trying to move ahead in the time frame he has in mind? I regret, as he probably does, that these things often happen in the other place, rather than here in the House of Commons, but does he not recognise that he has won most of the battle? Instead of making the strong case he is making, with which I think many of us agree, why does he not recognise that he has won much of the battle and can happily withdraw his new clause?

Tim Loughton: If what my hon. Friend has just said were true, I would be delighted, but I think that what the hon. Member for Stretford and Urmston said might have raised a few eyebrows on the Government Front Bench. If she is saying that part of the deal is that the review, which would be an added consultation on the back of the one we had before the Bill was introduced, will take place and result in concrete proposals coming forward that can be added to the Bill before it completes its passage through both Houses, I would be perfectly happy, but I do not think that will happen. I do not see how it can happen given the complexities that the Secretary of State has claimed still need to be addressed as regards all the legislative changes, costs, and so on.
	Perhaps the right hon. Member for St Helens South and Whiston (Mr Woodward) would like to repeat his question to the Minister in the wind-ups. If he gets the answer, “Yes, we think this can be done during the progress of this Bill”, I will be delighted to withdraw my amendment, because that is what I am trying to achieve. I do not care whether it happens tonight in this House or in a few months’ time in another place or when the Bill comes back here; I just want it to happen, because we all seem to agree that it should and that it is right and fair in principle.
	When we raised this subject with my right hon. Friend the Minister of State in Committee, he gave five reasons explaining why, supposedly, it was not necessary to act and that we were talking about an irrelevance. His first reason was that the aim of the Civil Partnership Act 2004 was not to provide an alternative to marriage but to give same-sex couples broadly equivalent rights. Yet now opposite-sex couples will be denied those broadly equivalent rights if they are not inclined to marry and are unable to get such civil partnerships. His second reason was that to get the legal rights, responsibilities and protections that marriage brings, people should just marry. The Secretary of State Marriage has described marriage as the gold standard, but the Government are choosing to limit people’s choices.
	The third contention by the Minister, whom I like greatly, was that the Government were not convinced that there is a group of people campaigning for opposite-sex civil partnerships. Well, I have quoted the opinion poll. The Government cannot have it both ways. They are scaremongering about the excessive cost of this measure and, at the same time, saying that there is no real demand for it, in which case it would not cost anything. They cannot have their cake and eat it.
	The fourth reason that the Minister came up with was that in the Government’s consultation 61% of those who answered an online response form said that opposite-sex couples should be able to register a civil partnership. I like and respect my right hon. Friend, who is not in his place at the moment, and I recognise that he has been dealt a pretty bum hand in having to steer this Bill through the House. However, I think he will regret adding the rider that more than half the people who answered the question identified themselves as lesbian, gay or bisexual. So there we have it: in a skewed voting system that would put Eurovision to shame, the vote of someone who is gay sometimes does not count as much if the Government say so. This needs investigating.
	Another example of inconsistency that came out in Committee concerned the hierarchy of people who should be given exemptions if, on an issue of conscience, they cannot carry out various public functions. However, I do not wish to digress and will move swiftly on to the Minister’s fifth reason: that we would need a raft of changes to other legislative provisions that would involve other parts of the United Kingdom. However, this is already being addressed in the Bill and those provisions could be addressed in parallel. I am afraid that this sort of mess and confusion is what happens when we rush through a Bill with far-reaching consequences that have not been properly thought through.
	There is no excuse not to do this now, or very urgently. The Government were warned by 61% of people in the consultation but rushed ahead. They should have looked at the wider issues. They could have said that they wanted to abolish civil partnerships and just have marriage, but then what would happen to the people in an existing civil partnership—would they just be sidelined and wither away? It would not be fair on them. That has not been thought through. Where are the impact assessments and cost calculations on the numbers who are supposedly going to convert from a civil partnership to a same-sex marriage? In fact, the number of opposite-sex couples taking up a new civil partnership could produce a saving if less money were spent on family breakdown. We have no details about how the figures have been worked out, about a start date when civil partnerships for opposite-sex couples might be introduced, or about what level of retrospective financial entitlements they may qualify for.
	I want to be helpful to the Government because I recognise that this has become a bit of a pickle. As I said, I will be perfectly happy if the Bill continues its progress on the timetable that the Government have set. If the Government agree to my proposed new clause in principle, they will have time, during the later stages of the Bill, to announce specific details about the start date, the commencement of entitlements and so on. I for one would be perfectly favourable to delaying the implementation date of opposite-sex civil partnerships if the Government agree to the principle. If they needed two, three or four years to sort out the detail before the measure would be able to commence, I would be happy with that if the Bill addressed this inequality and we recognised that opposite-sex civil partners have a place— I think it is a growing place—in our society.
	The Government would have to acknowledge that, in the meantime, they were creating an inequality, albeit a temporary one. They certainly cannot delay this until 2019. A reviewing amendment represents the worst of
	all worlds if the issue is kicked into such long grass. Have the Government learned nothing from recent experiences with Europe about promising votes in the next Parliament? Apparently it is acceptable to defer a decision on an equality issue for at least six years unless it was not promised in a manifesto and has all of a sudden become urgent.
	There are no complications involved in my proposal. I want opposite-sex civil partnerships to be offered on exactly the same basis as same-sex civil partnerships. It would not be possible for someone to become a civil partner with a close family member or if they are already in a union, and the partnership needs to be subject to the same termination criteria. It is simple. Surely the case is overwhelming.
	I do not do wrecking. I have never voted against my party or my Government in my 16 years in this House, and I do not want to start now. I have been entirely open, transparent and consistent in my opposition to the Bill. I am happy for it to progress on the Government’s time scale, if that is the will of the House. However, the House must respect the right of all Members to act according to their conscience, and my objections to the Bill have not been on primarily religious grounds. I have spent most of my time, like other Back Benchers, scrutinising the Bill’s safeguards on the likely basis that it will become law. The job of Back Benchers is to scrutinise legislation, hold the Executive to account and draw attention to anomalies, inconsistencies, injustices or, as in this case, inequalities, and urge practical action, which is what new clauses 10 and 11 do. A clear inequality is being created and I am sure that all fair-minded Members will want to address it as a matter of urgency. My new clauses would clearly achieve that.
	We are in danger of being party to a last-minute stitch-up between those on the Front Benches, but this is a free vote, not on a conscience issue, but on a simple matter of equality that Members can support—indeed, from what has been said so far, many Members do support it—whether they are whipped to support the Bill or whether they defy the Whip to oppose it, and it has the added bonus of improving family stability. The only chance to bring that about is through these new clauses. A delay until 2019 or similar will not hold water. A review without detail and the potential dragging on of headlines until the election certainly will not do Government Members any favours.
	If hon. Members believe that this principle is right, now is the time to vote for it. Let us vote on principle. Let us not vote for fudge. Surely we can all earn respect from our constituents for voting for what we believe in and for what we have told pollsters in private that we believe in. We should not be pressured by Whips or by parties. Let’s just do it.

Shaun Woodward: The amendments deal with some extremely important principles, such as equality, but we are also dealing with the absolutely essential need to correct a gross injustice that has lived for far too long and prevented gay men and women from enjoying the same rights as everybody else. The hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton) spoke extremely eloquently and this House would be wise to take him at his word when he says that his proposed new clause 10 is in no way a wrecking amendment. At the same time, we must understand that many people out
	there have waited far too long to enjoy a principle that many hon. Members take for granted. I therefore hope that tonight, he will join us in voting for the manuscript amendment tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Stretford and Urmston (Kate Green).
	The hon. Gentleman must understand that fear continues to play an important part in this country. Although I take at face value everything that he has said, he will know that, for some, this is an opportunity for a wrecking amendment. He will know that some people paid close attention to the Government’s consultation last year, which found that a majority of people were in favour of extending the principle of civil partnerships to everyone in this country. He will know that the Government’s response was to say simply, “We are not convinced.” For some, there is a genuine worry that the Government will launch into another review, take months if not years to conduct it and, even if they find that the cost is not that great, conclude that civil partnerships cannot be extended to everyone in this country. Alternatively, they might give the old excuse that there is no time in the legislative timetable.

Anne Main: The right hon. Gentleman is making a thoughtful speech. Has he not presented a greater argument to vote for new clauses 10 and 11, because otherwise he will be voting for a review that he has said he has no confidence in? Tonight is the time to say that if there is to be equality, there must be equality for heterosexual couples as well.

Shaun Woodward: The Secretary of State made it clear that the new review will be very different from the last review, which reached conclusions that were dismissed by the Government. I can only take at face value what the Secretary of State has said. I believe that the compromise that has been found by my hon. Friend the Member for Stretford and Urmston is the best way forward.

Ian Paisley Jnr: Is the right hon. Gentleman really telling the House that to rectify what he calls one blatant unfairness, he will create another obvious unfairness?

Shaun Woodward: I understand the spirit behind the hon. Gentleman’s question. I understand that some will see the delay to the extension of civil partnerships as unfair. However, let me be very clear that same-sex couples have no justice at all. It is not about fairness; there is no justice, because they cannot be married. It would be grossly unfair to perpetuate that injustice, especially if the spirit of the proposal put forward by my hon. Friend the Member for Stretford and Urmston were accepted tonight.
	I fear that some—I say again that I do not believe that this is the sentiment of the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham—want to use the principle of extending civil partnerships to delay indefinitely or wreck this House’s enactment of same-sex marriages.

Tim Loughton: I hear what the right hon. Gentleman is saying. No doubt there are some Machiavellian Members of the House who have such motives. He knows, because of the clear votes that we have had on Second Reading and this evening, that there is every likelihood that the Bill will pass through this House and the other. I will
	undertake to do everything in my power to stick to the Government’s timetable if my proposal is part of it. That is not wrecking the Bill.

Shaun Woodward: Again, I accept the hon. Gentleman’s word. I simply ask the Secretary of State to hear what her colleagues are saying about the spirit and speed with which they wish the review to be conducted. She is far more qualified than I am to give the hon. Gentleman and the House comfort by saying how quickly it would be possible to conduct such a review and when the Government would intend to implement it. She could give an assurance that if a majority were again found to be in favour of the proposal, instead of remaining unconvinced of its need, she would introduce it.
	None the less, in passing this Bill it is important that the Government find time to introduce legislation for civil partnerships for everyone. It is also important to look in the review at a glaring injustice of the Civil Partnership Act 2004—the second-class pension provision for same-sex men and women. That is clearly iniquitous and should be addressed, and I hope that those on the Opposition Front Bench will make an undertaking that, should this Government not do it, a future Labour Government will seek to put right that injustice.
	The hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham concluded his remarks by talking about a stitch-up. I say simply that if this review is used to cause undue and untimely delay to the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Bill, that would be the stitch-up. The moment has finally come for those who have waited far too long for this moment of fairness and equality to arise, and I hope that honourable colleagues will support the amendment tabled by the Opposition.

Greg Mulholland: This is the first time I have had the opportunity to speak on this subject, but I have been working with others to deal with some of the obvious flaws in this albeit well-intentioned Bill. I thank the Secretary of State and her ministerial colleagues for the way in which they have engaged and listened without question. As a result of that, however, I find it disappointing that they have failed to make some of the obvious—and in my opinion necessary—amendments to deal with the Bill’s flaws.
	I have been called anti-gay rights and anti-Christian; I have been called homophobic and at the same time accused of not being a proper Catholic. I have been accused of being worryingly conservative, yet at the same time dangerously libertarian. I am none of those things. What I am, very proudly, is a liberal, and I want to support a sensible, liberal way of dealing with the inequities that we undoubtedly have in our current system with regard to the recognition of adult couples in a relationship. We have not gone about this Bill the right way, and many of its flaws are because it has been pursued from a very conservative perspective, rather than a radical liberal one.
	For the avoidance of doubt, the role of the state, very simply, is to decide how to recognise relationships between adult couples, and which adult couple relationships to recognise in that way. That should be entirely separate from any consideration of how religions and belief-based
	organisations recognise relationships in accordance with their own beliefs. Instead of dealing with that point, however, the Bill has sought to build on the confusion and conflate the two issues even further. The result, I am afraid, is something of a mess.
	I want to vote on, and will always support, the state giving equal right to equal recognition of adult relationships, which then conveys equal rights as a result of that equal legal recognition. However, not only does the Bill not do that, it makes a complicated and unequal situation worse. Let me be clear about what the Bill will produce if it is passed, as it inevitably will be tomorrow. There will be two different definitions of civil marriage for same-sex couples, and another definition for opposite-sex couples. There will not be an equal definition. The Bill will allow two different legal recognitions of a relationship for some couples but not for others. It will fail to equalise pension rights for some couples, which is one reason we are having this debate and why legislation is needed. The Bill will continue to allow ministers of some faiths to conduct a marriage in the eyes of the law, and yet people of other religions and faith-based systems will not be allowed to do so. The Bill is unequal on four counts. As I have made clear, there is a better way. Any liberal would suggest finally properly separating the civil and the religious rather than building on what we have. I will speak about that more when we debate another group of amendments.
	My new clause 13 must be seen in the context of the amendment I have tabled for debate tomorrow—both are part of dealing with the situation properly. The measures are radical. They would repeal—this might not make me popular with anyone—the Marriage Act 1994 and the Civil Partnerships Act 2004 so that we end up with a single definition for all couples. We are not at that point, which I accept, but we cannot institutionalise a new inequality during the passage of a Bill that is supposed to be about equalising marriage. Hon. Members should remember that civil partnerships were introduced to give same-sex couples another form of relationship. In many people’s eyes, it is a lesser form of relationship. We must not institutionalise that. If civil partnerships are worth having, we must allow them to be a different form of legal recognition for all, or do what I suggest in new clause 13 and abolish them altogether. Either way, we would end up with proper equality.
	Ministers and shadow Ministers and others have suggested that the Bill is not the measure with which to deal with that inequality. I am afraid that that argument is simply absurd. Some say that we should not introduce that equality because of the cost—the figure of £4 billion has been mentioned. That is entirely to fall into the trap of those who oppose any change to traditional civil marriage. They argue that we should not introduce any measure because of the cost. As a liberal, let me be clear that we change civil rights and introduce genuine equal legal recognition because it is the right thing to do, not because it costs the state money. The argument that we should not do something because it costs the state money is a slippery slope. I should tell the Minister that whoever introduced that argument to the debate made a huge mistake.
	My amendment 10 would be the genuine, liberal way of dealing with the situation—properly redefining how the state recognises adult relationships. The amendment would get rid of clearly Christian concepts that come
	directly from Church of England canon law and are shared by certain other Christian faiths. It would mean that we would not count on the statute book adult couples’ sexual practices with each other. Currently, adultery is a reason to allow some couples but not others to dissolve their civil marriage. Most absurdly of all, lawyers dictate that certain couples and not others must consummate their marriage in a certain way.
	It is embarrassing and ludicrous, when we are rightly dealing with the inequities of the current civil partnership regime that does not bestow the same rights, status or recognition on same-sex couples, that the Bill will continue to enshrine ancient Christian concepts in the statute book and apply them to some couples only. If there had been more listening and more acting on that listening, new clause 10, which has been discussed at some length, would not be necessary. It should not be necessary. A clear part of any redefinition of how the state defines and recognises adult relationships should have always been either to keep civil partnerships and make them open to all adult citizens, or wipe them away and have a single, equal definition for all.
	For all the sophistry and arguments from those on the Front Benches, in their heart of hearts they know this to be true. That is why I urge everyone in this House who regards themselves in any way as a liberal and who wants to see equal rights and recognition to vote for new clause 10. That is the only way people can have confidence that the real motivation—I believe it is the real motivation, even though it has been expressed badly—is to deal with the inequities currently in the Bill. Even at this late stage, I urge the Secretary of State to listen, disregard the cost of human rights and, either through changing marriage or changing civil partnerships, ensure that all adults can have their relationships recognised in one equal or two equal ways.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr Speaker: Order. Several colleagues are seeking to catch my eye. I am keen to accommodate them. The House will appreciate that it is only right that the Minister should have a reasonable opportunity to wind up on her own lead new clause in the group, at approximately 9.50 pm. I appeal to colleagues to help me to help them to help each other.

Caroline Lucas: I will be brief.
	I put my name to new clauses 10 and 11 in good faith. Opening civil partnerships to opposite-sex couples is something that I have campaigned on for years, so I am hugely disappointed to see such political games being played.
	I put my signature to those new clauses because I want to promote equality. It is important to allow everyone—same-sex couples and opposite-sex couples—to enjoy a civil partnership or marriage as they choose. This is a question of equal love. It is not about asking for special treatment for gay couples or straight couples; it is about everyone enjoying the same rights regardless of their sexuality. It is worth noting that equal rights are already enjoyed in countries such as France, where many heterosexuals want and can get the legal security of a civil union if they do not want to get married. I do not understand why straight couples in Britain should not have that right, too. That is why, for several years,
	I have been writing to the Government—for example, back in May 2011—and calling on them to support civil partnerships for opposite-sex couples. I have done so on a number of occasions, so this is not a new idea or one that has only just now come on to the agenda.
	The Government have had time to consider the cost implications and should not now be using their failure to do so as an excuse for denying people equality, especially when the projections on the pension costs are so speculative—in the space of five days they have gone up from £3 billion to £4 billion. One gets the sense that they are being done on the back of a cigarette packet. If civil partnerships for mixed-sex couples really would generate £4 billion of cost liabilities and cause more than two years’ delay, let us see the evidence, but so far there has been none.
	Colleagues will be aware that there has been heavy briefing claiming that to support the new clauses would be tantamount to enabling the Bill to be scuppered by whomever. I do not know who is trying to scupper the Bill, but I do know that there has been heavy briefing to the effect that the Government would be happy for the new clauses to go ahead and therefore for the Bill to have less chance, perhaps, in the other place. My bottom line is that I do not want the chance presented by the Bill being scuppered. I do not want it delayed—I want it given a swift and safe passage—and if that means that I need to abstain on the new clauses, I will, but what an indictment it is of the political processes of this place, particularly of the Government, who are playing political games with an issue that matters hugely to my constituents and to many others up and down the country.
	Surely, if the Government were really committed to equal marriage, they would not be implying that their support for the Bill was conditional. Ministers need to explain exactly why opening up civil partnerships would delay the implementation of gay marriage and why, for example, it is not possible to work on the basis set out in 2004, when some of the essential consequentials were put in place for civil partnerships. Of course, the issues for same-sex couples are different from those for opposite-sex couples, but I struggle to see how it could take two years or more, if the political will was there to sort it out.
	Furthermore, the Bill does not allow employers and pension providers to award gay spouses and civil partners the equivalent survivor benefits payable to a partner in a mixed-sex marriage, hence my amendment on pensions and gay marriage couples, which we will be discussing tomorrow. That substantive inequality remains in the Bill, but could be considered at the same time as civil partnerships for opposite-sex couples.
	There is no procedural reason why the new clauses on civil partnerships need wreck the chances of introducing legal same-sex marriage. As I say, I believe that the proposals are being used to play political games, but I do not think that my constituents want me to play such games; they want equality fair and square and they expect a Government who have stated their support for equal marriage to stay the course and to do so without creating new inequalities and in a way that provides for equal marriage and partnerships for everyone. This is about equality. Are we really saying that people are equal only if it does not cost us too much and if it is not too complicated? We need to meet those cost arguments
	and other objections head on, rather than allowing them to undermine the basic rights to full equality for every couple.
	In summary, we need to guarantee comprehensive equality for opposite sex and same-sex couples; to open up marriage and civil partnerships to all; to use the Bill to deliver the same pension arrangements for couples regardless of their sexuality or whether they are in a marriage or civil partnership; and to do all that without playing games with the lives of people up and down this country who care deeply about what is happening in the House and who are watching us tonight and cannot believe the kinds of games that it would appear are being played.

Crispin Blunt: I could begin my remarks by saying, “I don’t want to say, ‘I told you so’”, but that would not actually be true. I said on Second Reading that if we did not deal then with the equality issue, elaborated very well by my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds North West (Greg Mulholland) and the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas), we would have to do it all over again at a later date. Regrettably, that is the position in which we seem now to find ourselves.
	Personally, I entirely endorse what my hon. Friends the Members for Leeds North West and for Bristol North West (Charlotte Leslie)—the latter also signed the new clauses—said about the intention of the new clauses. If we want to do the job properly, we need to differentiate religious and civil marriage. My hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton) asked whether the word “marriage” and its associations might prevent people from taking up a civil commitment of legal union. Without dancing on the head of a pin, however, over the different legal obligations of a union between two people of whatever sex, it should not be beyond the wit of the House or the Government to introduce measures to achieve the equality objective in a way entirely congruent with the position put forward by my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds North West. However, I have to tell him that my judgment is that where we have got to on this—the work done in Committee and, frankly, the failure to take the opportunity to address the issue properly—means that it will not get done. I am influenced to a degree by the position taken by Stonewall and my right hon. Friend the Member for Arundel and South Downs (Nick Herbert), who, along with others, is extremely anxious to get this Bill on the statute book.
	In the end, the conclusive position is that of Opposition Front Benchers. It is their decision that will dictate what actually happens. I would have come to a conclusion that agreed with my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds North West: that if we cannot do it properly, which is how he wanted to do it, then doing it in a second-best fashion and having two levels of union or marriage—civil partnerships or civil marriage, with religious marriage associated with it—would at least deliver equality. Understandably, the Opposition have—in my view properly and responsibly—made a judgment about whether the route offered by new clause 10 might threaten the timely passage of the Bill and thereby delay matters for those who are anxious to get on and take advantage of the opportunity to enter a same-sex marriage.
	It is a messy compromise, but I will support the Opposition’s amendment, to ensure that we get on with the review in as timely a fashion as possible and drop this five-year business from the Bill. I have to say to my right hon. and hon. Friends on the Front Bench that the way in which we have managed this whole process has not reflected very well on any of us. Frankly, it does not reflect terribly well on Opposition Front Benchers that they have undertaken this manoeuvre right at the last moment. All this was predictable and was predicted, not least by me. The conclusion is that we will have the opportunity to have all this entertainment all over again at some future date, when we finally address the issue of equality and put a measure that promotes complete equality on the statute book. I regret that that is where the corpus of opinion appears to be now. If we could rescue things and introduce a proper measure of equality—which is what the amendments tabled by my hon. Friends the Members for Bristol North West and for Leeds North West would do—that is what I would wish for. I regret that we are in this position, but I am going to bow to the inevitable, accept second best and look forward to the opportunity to do this all over again at some future date.

Tom Harris: I have a great deal of time for the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton)—who may or may not have been about to leave the Chamber as I stood up. I would have been proud if the work he did as children’s Minister, particularly on adoption, had been done in the name of a Labour Government. I was disappointed to see him leave the Front Bench—although presumably not as disappointed as he was. He has started, in an excellent speech, to open my mind on this issue with his arguments—I am not yet convinced, but I am happy to support new clause 16 as amended.
	When we legislated in this House 10 years ago, we stopped short of legalising same-sex marriage for the simple reason that it was considered a step too far. We did not legislate for civil partnerships because we had arrived at a perfect alternative institution to marriage. We stopped at that point. We deliberately and intentionally created something that was not as good as marriage, because politically we did not feel we could get it at that time. We did so for the best reasons possible and it was a huge step forward, not just for gay couples but for the whole nation. I am extremely proud to have voted for that legislation, but let us be honest about what civil partnerships were. They fell short of marriage—they were second best—because we could not get as far as marriage. That is why, a decade later, we are debating this reform. In a perfect world, it would have been delivered long before now. The case for allowing same-sex couples to marry is not that they have been denied it so far; it is that marriage is better than a civil partnership.

Kate Green: rose—

Chris Bryant: rose—

Tom Harris: I will give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Stretford and Urmston (Kate Green).

Kate Green: I do not think that many of the people who have entered into successful and happy civil partnerships would agree that those partnerships were in some way second best. In 2004, we might not have known
	where this journey would lead us, but nine years on we can see that the civil partnership legislation has been extremely successful in its own right. It ought to be celebrated.

Tom Harris: I accept what my hon. Friend says, but let me ask her a question. Had we been able to legislate to allow same-sex marriage 10 years ago and had such a law been put on the statute book, would we be having this debate today? Would we be spending more than a few seconds debating whether to introduce civil partnerships for straight and gay couples? Of course the answer is no.
	Like every other Member, I have received letters and e-mails warning me that legislating for same-sex marriage will, in some undefined way, undermine the institution of marriage. I take a very different view. I believe that the real threat to marriage will come from the continuation of civil partnerships and their extension to heterosexual couples. As things stand today, the legal security and recognition offered by marriage can be enjoyed only by straight couples. The legal security and recognition offered by civil partnerships can be enjoyed only by same-sex couples, although I hope that that is about to change. Needlessly telling all couples that they can now opt for a second-best arrangement that nevertheless offers all the same legal privileges and protections as marriage would surely undermine marriage far more than extending the qualification for marriage to same-sex couples. From the day the Bill becomes law, the choice offered to all couples will be the same as the choice that has up to now been offered to all straight couples: either get married or don’t—it is your choice.
	Because we have indulged in this debate, we have failed to address anther issue. Many individuals—mostly, but not always, women with dependent children—need to be offered more security when they are living with a partner and perhaps depending on him financially. But if that partner is unwilling to commit to marriage, he will probably be equally reluctant to enter an alternative arrangement that offers the same level of legal and financial responsibilities. What those partners and families need is some kind of passive legal recognition, perhaps similar to what used to be known as common law marriage, a state that used to prevail in Scotland but which, since 2006, no longer does so. Moves to make civil partnerships available to all might, on the face of it, look like a progressive move, but they will do nothing to help those vulnerable women, and their children, who are in relationships with partners who simply refuse to bind themselves with legal red tape.
	As for those who have already entered into a civil partnership and who do not wish to enter into the state of marriage as provided by this Bill, I have to say that it should not be beyond the wit of the Government or this House to frame legislation that would recognise each existing civil partnership until it was dissolved either legally or by the death of one partner, while preventing any more civil partnerships from being entered into. The hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham says that he wants full equality. I concede that making civil partnerships available to straight couples is one way of achieving that. Another way would be to make civil partnerships available to no one.

Charlotte Leslie: I want to put on record that I support new clause 10, because the Bill is fundamentally about equality and, to some
	extent, equality must mean symmetry. If we are going to make the dramatic and historic move to exercise equality across marriage, we must have symmetry. It is extraordinary that, despite the alarms that have been raised and the warnings that have been given about the failure to extend civil partnerships symmetrically to different-sex couples, three amendments have been tabled on this subject only at the eleventh hour. This does not seem to have been thought through before now. That is a disappointing state of affairs for a Bill that so loudly claims to have equality at the centre of everything it does.
	If we are to be logically and intellectually consistent, I do not see how we can pass a Bill that extends equality in marriage without extending civil partnerships to different-sex couples. It is not as if such symmetry was a surprise or not much covered in the debate. When would the next opportunity be? We have already seen the amount of controversy created by rearranging marriage, which is so connected with the fundamental roots of our establishment and the relationship between the state and the Church. It is unlikely, I think, that many Governments will rush to introduce such legislation again.
	As well as supporting new clause 10, I support the new clause tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds North West (Greg Mulholland), as I believe that we have missed a fundamental opportunity genuinely to modernise marriage in the world in which we live. Some may say that that is a very difficult, complex and controversial operation to undertake; I would agree. Some may say that it is not an operation that should be undertaken lightly; I would agree. If we are to undertake it, however, perhaps we should tackle one of the biggest anomalies we face, which is the role of the Church of England in how we see marriage in a multi-faith, often secular world.
	What have we learned from this debate that has been so played out in the newspapers over the past months? It is that the concept of marriage is—we should hold our breath—controversial. People believe different things. Some fervently believe—and, they would say, with good reason—that marriage, by description, is a union between a man and a woman. Others with equal fervour—and, they would say, with equal reason—believe that it is a union between two individuals who are committed and love each other very much. As marriage is a social construct, it is difficult to say which one of those should reign supreme. Certainly, since this is in the realm of subjective individual attitudes towards people’s relationship with each other, I as a Conservative do not think that the state should be stepping into it and dictating with such vigour.
	I therefore support civil partnerships for same-sex and different-sex couples and, if that does not come about, the removing of civil partnerships for same-sex and different-sex couples for the reason of symmetry. The state should take control of that which belongs to the state—the objective and our tax and legal affairs—and the genuine, subjective view of one person towards another and what their relationship signifies in the eyes of any higher authority that they choose to name should be in the realm of the subjective and the civic arena.
	If we had before us a controversial and historic Bill for which we would be remembered, I and many people across the country could support it. Given the duty placed on this House to exert influence and create equality for its citizens, my grave reservation is that we have missed a very big opportunity. We risk putting an equality sticking plaster on a fundamentally anachronistic and rather flawed system. I will see how the House votes on the amendments this evening before deciding how to vote tomorrow, but I regret this great missed opportunity for those who believe in genuine and not just cosmetic equality.

Mark Durkan: Like the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas), I signed new clause 10 in good faith and I stand by it in good faith. As someone who voted for the Bill’s Second Reading and who has defended my position on the Bill since, I am quite clear that if provisions are there to extend equality, then equality is what should be extended and provided for. The fact that some supporters of new clause 10 oppose the Bill will not intimidate me into not supporting it. Equally, the fact that the hon. Member for Glasgow South (Mr Harris), who will be supporting new clause 16 as amended, wants to emerge from the review potentially the abolition of civil partnerships for anyone will not intimidate me into not supporting the review if it is intended to look at some of the issues that arise.
	It is perfectly possible for Members to vote for new clause 16, as amended, and for new clause 10 precisely because, as the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton) made very clear, the two could be reconciled if the Government committed with Opposition support to bringing forward an additional amendment with a qualified commencement date for new clause 10 that relates to the review provided by new clause 16. An entirely false tension has been created between them. Sensible good legislators can support both, and sensible good legislators should demand that both Front-Bench teams get their acts together properly and come out with a competent Bill that not only gives equality now for those who need it, but promises equality in the future for those who are clearly saying, “Why are we being left behind and left in limbo?”

Nick Herbert: I have no objection in principle to the extension of civil partnerships to heterosexual couples—far from it—but I am concerned about what is proposed by my hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton), and the effect that it could have.
	First, let us look more carefully at the policy intent that lies behind new clause 10. It has been claimed that some 3 million cohabiting couples have not married and that the new clause would give them an incentive to formalise their arrangements, but why do they not wish to formalise their arrangements at the moment? What evidence or assessment should lead us to believe that any proportion of those 3 million people would seek to enter into a commitment that is as exacting as a marriage commitment, with all that it entails?
	The fact is that none of us, on either side of the House, can quantify the demand. We are struggling with the figures relating to the potential pension and taxation impact, for instance, because we do not know the extent of that demand. If we are honest about it, we
	must acknowledge that no group or lobby is telling Members of Parliament that this is what they want. Indeed, very few people are doing so. That stands in stark contrast to those who have been urging for some time—

Tim Loughton: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Nick Herbert: I hope that my hon. Friend will forgive me if I make some progress.
	As it does not appear that there is a constituency that is in favour of the change, we do not know how many people would enter into such a commitment. The findings of a poll that was conducted by YouGov at the weekend suggested that the uptake would be relatively low. Given the number of cohabiting couples, we must start to consider what are the proper policy solutions.
	In 2007, the Law Commission produced a set of proposals that would have imposed duties on cohabiting couples when it came to separation and their responsibilities for children. My hon. Friend—who I know has a fine record, having been a Children’s Minister—did not mention that. According to the Law Commission,
	“cohabitants have not made the distinctive legal and public commitment that marriage entails.”
	The truth is that the arrangement into which they enter is completely different from the arrangement that we would create in respect of civil partnership. I think that more work needs to be done to assess the real level of demand and determine what are the right cohabiting policy solutions.
	The second issue that I wish to raise was described by my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol North West (Charlotte Leslie) as the need to ensure symmetry. Let me point out that no symmetry will be created even if the Bill is passed, as I very much hope that it will be. If passed, it will be a huge step forward in allowing marriage for same-sex couples, but no symmetry will be created, because the principal Churches will not allow marriage for same-sex couples. The Church of England will not be allowed to do it, and the Catholic Church will choose not to do it. It is a false argument to suggest that a symmetry will be created, or that the Bill will create an asymmetry that it will be possible to correct by extending civil partnerships to a completely unquantified and unknown group of people.

Ian Paisley Jnr: Is it not the case that in a mad rush to put same-sex marriage on the statute book, the right hon. Gentleman is prepared to ditch and discard everyone else’s rights irrespective of the cost?

Nick Herbert: I have already said that I have no objection to the principle, but there is no evidence that there is a demand for the measure.
	That brings me to the third point that I wish to make. We now have the prospect of achieving an incredibly important step forward for same-sex couples by introducing marriage for them, and I am very anxious about the possibility that that will be put at risk—I do not put it any more strongly than that—if we add to the Bill an uncertain and unquantified element for which there does not appear to be a genuine demand. I believe the other place may then add greater difficulty into the Bill than would otherwise be the case. It will have two issues to deal with, rather than one. I therefore urge all of
	good faith who support marriage for same-sex couples to be very cautious before supporting the amendment in question. Indeed, I urge them to oppose it, and to do the straightforward thing of agreeing to the review. I support the Opposition amendment to ensure that the review is immediate. Given the complexity of these issues, that is an eminently sensible way forward.

Tim Loughton: My right hon. Friend clearly said we do not know the cost of the proposals in the amendments. Will he therefore put on record that it was entirely irresponsible and misleading for the Government to brief that the cost could be £3 billion, £4 billion or, as they said today, between £4 billion and £8 billion, and that that may have falsely swayed the argument?

Nick Herbert: With the greatest respect to my hon. Friend and constituency neighbour—indeed, my constituent —for whom I have a lot of time, he cannot have it both ways. He suggested that the proposal would be a way of dealing with the £44 billion cost of family breakdown. If the impact is small and very few heterosexual people want to take up civil partnerships, it will have little impact on the cost of family breakdown. The answer is that he does not know, the Government do not know and the Opposition do not know, because the work has not been done.
	I fully accept that some Members genuinely wish to support the amendment because they believe it would somehow provide an extension of equality, and that they would therefore do so for the best of intentions, but let us be clear: some Members are supporting this amendment for precisely the opposite reason. I do not include my hon. Friend in that. Some Members are breathing the word “equality” for the first time. It sticks in the craw of many of us to be lectured suddenly now about equality by Members who have been opposing this Bill and equality and every single measure that has come forward to promote equality in the first place, including civil partnerships.
	Some of the Members who have put their name to this amendment and who intend to vote for it, proclaiming the need to ensure equality and symmetry, voted against the civil partnerships legislation in 2004. One of those Members described that civil partnerships legislation as a buggers’ muddle and thought that was a funny thing to say at the time. Suddenly, within less than a decade, almost no Member of this House will say that they did not support the civil partnerships legislation, and suddenly some of the Members who did not support it stand up now and say, “Oh, it’s terribly important on equality grounds that this category of civil partnerships”—which they did everything they possibly could to oppose—“is extended to heterosexual couples.” It is a faux attachment to equality and it should not be taken at face value.
	I do not take anything away from those who genuinely think that it would be a sensible status to create. I am with them, but we must not imperil this Bill by allowing others to play their political games. I assure Members on both sides of the House that those in the other place are waiting for the opportunity to declare that this Bill will need more time and they will have to look at it in much greater detail, and then suddenly we will find that it will not be returned to us, or that it will be returned to us in a form we do not like.
	I urge those who wish to see a very important and genuine step forward for equality to recognise the sense of the compromise that the Government and the official Opposition have agreed, which is to review this matter immediately in order to assess whether there is a genuine need for such a change. Let us make sure we genuinely take forward this step for equality now, and that we are not seduced by false arguments.

Julian Huppert: It is a great honour and a privilege—and also a challenge—to follow the right hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs (Nick Herbert), who is very passionate about this issue and who has championed the cause of same-sex marriage with great authority.
	People will want to arrange their relationships in a number of different ways. Some will want to have marriages; some will want to have civil partnerships; some will simply want to cohabit. The state should enable all those things to happen. The right hon. Gentleman rightly mentioned the Law Commission report and the Bill proposed in the other place by Lord Lester, and I hope we will see progress on that. I am delighted that my party acknowledges those different options. Three years ago, in a conference motion entitled “Equal Marriage in the United Kingdom”, we said that the Government should:
	“Open both marriage and civil partnerships to both same-sex and mixed-sex couples.”
	I absolutely stand by that.
	We know that there are people who would like to have mixed-sex civil partnerships. We know that there was a consultation, although that was denied earlier, that expressed a clear view. It has been argued that not many people would want such partnerships, but I do not see that as a problem. Equality matters. Even if only a few people are being discriminated against, we should all want to stop any such discrimination.
	Arguments have also been made about costs and, as a matter of principle, I do not think that costs should be a bar to equalities legislation. It would, I suspect, be a lot cheaper to deny women the vote or to restrict voting even further to wealthy men above a certain age, but I do not think that anybody in the House would argue that to save money at election time we should reduce the number of people who could vote.
	I am also concerned about the idea of cost as a matter of policy, and I tried to raise that issue earlier with the Secretary of State. It would save the country money in pensions if we actively discouraged people from getting married or having relationships, but I do not think that that is the right way to go. If people would like to have those relationships, the fact that they will get some pension rights should not stop us from allowing them.
	I believe passionately in equal civil marriage, but I also agree with the right hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs that we must not give up hope on same-sex marriage to try to get that. That would be the wrong choice. That is why I welcome the review and the fact that it will now be an urgent, prompt review rather than one that sits in the long grass for five years. It is not just a question of when we start it, however, but of when we finish it. That must also be prompt. It is not the starting time that will make a difference to people who want such a provision, but the finishing time.
	We also need a commitment to act when the review concludes. I hoped to intervene on the Secretary of State earlier to hear that there would be a commitment to legislation, if such a recommendation is the outcome of the review and consultation. That is what we are all expecting and, whether it happens in this Bill or in a future Bill, we want to see it.
	I want to see progress towards equality, equal marriage and equal civil partnerships. We have a decision to make as a House about how best to get there. It is a question of balance and there are those who, for the best of reasons, will want to support new clause 10 so that we can plough ahead. I understand that reasoning and it is a close call, but I think that they are risking a lot. They are risking the failure of the rest of the Bill’s provisions on same-sex marriage and I hope that they will not do that. That might not be the intention of the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton), but it might be the consequence, and I am alarmed at that prospect and by the decisions that the Prime Minister might face if that happened. There is a tough balance to be struck in how we make the most progress we can on equalities, but I think that we must support the review and not new clause 10.

Maria Miller: Clearly, we have had a vigorous debate today. Let me wind up before we move to a vote.
	It is clear that adding the whole new concept of the extension of civil partnerships threatens delaying and even potentially derailing the Bill. New clause 16 offers a considered way forward, ensuring that the questions that hon. Members on both sides of the House have rightly asked can be answered. There has been a great deal of talk about fairness, and the fairness that this Bill enables is that same-sex couples can marry for the first time. We should not be trying to rectify other issues before we rectify that.
	We must make it clear, as those on both Front Benches have done already, that an immediate review is possible to assess the need for the extension of civil partnerships. I am absolutely happy to accept the manuscript amendment tabled by the Opposition and to make it clear that we will facilitate a speedy review. It is clear from today’s debate, however, that there are policy and cost implications and we should ensure that we know them before we move forward. I will not allow the extension of civil partnerships to heterosexual couples to delay the Bill, and I think that all three main parties agree on that.
	The hon. Member for Stretford and Urmston (Kate Green) rightly said, in her considered contribution—I welcomed the tone that she took—that to date there had been “cursory” consultation in this area. I welcome her desire for further elucidation of the issues that we have talked about, and her desire for the Bill’s passage not to be delayed. New clause 16, and amendment (a) to it, will give us a considered way forward. I also welcome the fact that she will not support new clauses 10 and 11, and I hope that those proposing those new clauses will consider not pressing them as a result.
	My hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton) gave an interesting and passionate display of argumentation. He will see that there is a clear undertaking around new clause 16, and that a review will take place while the Bill is in the
	Lords, which will provide a prompt response, in terms of a consultation; perhaps that will give him the reassurance that he is looking for.

Tim Loughton: We have a dilemma here, because if my right hon. Friend goes ahead with new clause 16 on the basis that the review could take until 2019, we must vote against it. She has just said that an immediate review is possible. Will she clearly tell Government Members whether she agrees with the hon. Member for Stretford and Urmston (Kate Green), who has made it clear that she thinks a review can have taken place come Report in the Lords, and that its findings could be added to the Bill before it has gone through both Houses? If that is the case, I would be delighted to support my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and drop my new clauses, but she needs to make it clear whether she thinks that is practically doable.

Maria Miller: What I can be absolutely clear about is that I am committed to undertaking an urgent review, and that the review will come through promptly, and in the way that my hon. Friend would expect. The Bill is due in the House of Lords in two weeks. It would not be feasible—no Member of the House would expect it—for me to undertake a proper consultation in that time frame, but I undertake further to discuss the timetable for the review with my hon. Friend, and it will absolutely go forward in a prompt fashion. That is what he would expect us to say.
	My right hon. Friend the Member for Arundel and South Downs (Nick Herbert) made an impassioned speech. He properly talked about the importance of getting the right solutions for cohabiting couples, and the extension of civil partnerships may or may not be that right solution. We need to do the right policy work to ensure that we take these decisions for the right reasons, and in the right way.
	The right hon. Member for St Helens South and Whiston (Mr Woodward) put his finger on it when he said that the gross unfairness is the fact that same-sex couples cannot get married. That is what the House needs to focus on today. By voting for new clause 16 and amendment (a) to it, we can get to a position in which we can deal with the issue of extending civil partnerships to heterosexual couples without it getting in the way of making sure that the unfairness that he rightly identifies is dealt with swiftly. He talked eloquently about the inequities in pension provision. If that was a simple issue to rectify, presumably his Government would have addressed the issue back in 2004.
	The hon. Member for Glasgow South (Mr Harris) talked about same-sex marriage being a step too far in 2004. I was not a Member of the House at that point, but I understand the sentiment behind his comments. I can say to the House today that this is not a step too far. It is not something that we should shy away from. We have to be clear in our commitment to focusing on extending marriage to same-sex couples, and should not be distracted by trying to incorporate into the Bill, at this point in time, issues that would create further delay and debate in the other place.

Gerald Howarth: Will my right hon. Friend provide the House with her assessment of the fundamental difference between a civil partnership and same-sex marriage, save the marriage bit?

Maria Miller: That issue has been raised at every stage of the debate—on Second Reading and in Committee. My hon. Friend will know by now that there are some technical differences in the way that the Bill will work, but the biggest difference of all is that we are for the first time enabling same-sex couples to have access to something that heterosexual couples have taken for granted for many decades and hundreds of years and that society values intrinsically. We have to ask ourselves why we should deny people the ability to take part in something that so many of us know is a rich and important part of our lives.

Ian Paisley Jnr: Can the Secretary of State confirm to the House the special arrangements that she has put in place for Northern Ireland—that if a same-sex couple get married under new laws here and move to Northern Ireland, in law it will be regarded as only a civil partnership?

Maria Miller: The hon. Gentleman raises an important issue. These are matters that have been decided in Northern Ireland and I respect entirely the decisions that have been taken. I will continue to work with colleagues in the Northern Ireland Assembly to make sure that the will of that part of the United Kingdom is dealt with in the appropriate way. What he rightly describes is the situation for civil partnerships that take place in other parts of the world already. The Northern Ireland Assembly recognises, as we would expect it to, a civil partnership that took place, for example, in Canada or Spain. We are simply asking for marriages of same-sex couples to be recognised in the way that civil partnerships from other countries are recognised. I am sure the hon. Gentleman would agree with that.

Peter Bone: Will the Secretary of State give way?

Maria Miller: Perhaps my hon. Friend would forgive me if I draw my remarks to a close, as the House has had a great deal of discussion on the matter today and I am not sure he was available for the earlier discussions on this group of amendments.
	I say to colleagues across the House that we must show our commitment to the ability of same-sex couples to be married. We have to show that we are not diverted but that we will make sure that we consider in full the opportunities of extending civil partnerships to heterosexual couples. We can achieve that if colleagues vote through new clause 16, as I said, but we need to make sure that we are prioritising now the need for the choice for same-sex couples to be able to get married, not further choice among heterosexual couples. That is an important measure that the Government can put forward today and it has support from both those on the Labour Front Bench and the Liberal Democrat Front Bench.
	Many of the issues that we have discussed today were discussed when the Bill was before the House back in 2004. When the issue of extending civil partnerships to opposite-sex couples came before the House, the then Minister, Jacqui Smith, ruled it out, saying:
	“That is not a matter for the Bill”—[Official Report, 12 October 2004; Vol. 425, c. 179.]
	That is the stance that we are taking today. The then Minister in the House of Lords, Baroness Scotland, said:
	“This Bill does not undermine or weaken the importance of marriage and we do not propose to open civil partnership to opposite-sex couples.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 22 April 2004; Vol. 660, c. 388.]

Crispin Blunt: Will my right hon. Friend ensure that the review that takes place will include the proposition put forward so ably by our hon. Friend the Member for Leeds North West (Greg Mulholland)?

Maria Miller: I think that my hon. Friend has heard me say already that what we are very clear about and focused on is ensuring that the passage of the Bill is not impeded and that we will look carefully and in detail at the way civil partnerships could be taken forward in future but we have to do that in the right way. The House would expect us to come forward with a considered recommendation that has been fully consulted on, and that is what we intend to do.
	I think that we have had a full and frank debate, and I thank all Members who have taken the time to contribute. I think that the manner of the debate has been in the best fashion of this House. We have listened to each other and considered the arguments. We will ensure that the Bill, as it goes forward for its second day on Report tomorrow, can be considered in the proper manner.
	Debate interrupted (Programme Order, this day).

The Speaker put forthwith the Question already proposed from the Chair (Standing Order No. 83E), That the clause be read a Second time.
	The House divided:
	Ayes 391, Noes 57.

Question accordingly agreed to.
	New clause 16 read a Second time, and added to the Bill.
	The Speaker then put forthwith the Questions necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded at that time (Standing Order No. 83E).
	Amendment made to new clause 16: (a), leave out from ‘practicable’ to end of Clause, and insert
	‘and include a full public consultation’.—(Kate Green.)
	New clause 16, as amended, added to the Bill.

New Clause 10
	 — 
	Part 1 of the Civil Partnership Act 2004

‘(1) Part 1 of the Civil Partnership Act 2004 is amended as follows.
	(2) In section 1, subsection (1), leave out “of the same sex”.’. —(Tim Loughton.)
	Brought up, and read the First time.
	Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.
	The House divided:
	Ayes 70, Noes 375.

Question accordingly negatived.

Clause 18
	 — 
	Short title and commencement

Amendment made: 53, page14,line17,leave out ‘comes’ and insert
	‘and section (Review of civil partnership) come’.—(Maria Miller.)
	Bill to be further considered tomorrow.

Business Without Debate
	 — 
	FOREIGN AFFAIRS

Ordered,
	That Mr Bob Ainsworth be discharged from the Foreign Affairs Committee and Sandra Osborne be added.—(Geoffrey Clifton-Brown, on behalf of the Committee of Selection.)

PETITION
	 — 
	Bedroom Tax

Nicholas Dakin: I am pleased to be able to present the petition on behalf of residents of Scunthorpe on the impact of the bedroom tax, particularly in the light of headlines over the weekend reporting the huge leap in demand for emergency hardship handouts for tenants as a result of this pernicious policy.
	The petition states:
	The Petition of residents of the UK,
	Declares that the Petitioners believe that the spare room subsidy or ‘bedroom tax’ is an unjust and immoral tax on the most vulnerable in society.
	The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to abolish this tax.
	And your Petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray.
	[P001178]

MARINE MANAGEMENT ORGANISATION (DATA ACCURACY)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—(Nicky Morgan.)

Alison Seabeck: The establishment of the Marine Management Organisation was deemed at the time to be a sensible approach, although the decision to move to the north-east was one I argued against. The loss of expertise within the organisation was never going to be easy to rebuild overnight, and the use of consultants is expensive and never quite provides the degree of continuity an organisation needs—it loses its embedded knowledge. Good catch data management and information are at the heart of fisheries management, stock assessment, targeted enforcement strategy and the sustainable use of our marine environment. Our national fleet, and the communities and livelihoods they support, depend on them.
	When I was contacted by a scalloper in my constituency, Terri Portmann, about her problems making sense of the figures available via the MMO, DEFRA and the EU, it became clear that there was a mismatch that in turn was causing serious problems for those in the industry. For 18 months, we have been trying to understand what the problems are and where they lie so that the industry, hand in hand with officials, can try to make the system work better for everyone. Ms Portmann has, through her own diligence, been pursuing clarification, and I have asked a series of parliamentary questions. Others have also been pressing the Minister on this matter.
	Unfortunately, I have encountered a worrying pattern of obfuscation and inaccuracy. The MMO and DEFRA have both offered assurances that everything is fine, but when we have asked for evidence of this, every—and I mean every—request for information made either through a freedom of information request or environmental information regulations has met with time extensions and the need to request internal reviews. There has been constant delay. Every internal review has required that a complaint be made to the Information Commissioner’s Office and, importantly, every complaint so far—more are still pending final outcomes—has been upheld, as a result of which the result the MMO has been ordered to provide information it had previously withheld or to admit that there is no such evidence. I must repeat that final point: no such evidence.
	The ICO’s decisions have demonstrated that in every case when requests have been made to substantiate claims made by officials about statistics and management, either there has been no evidence to support the MMO’s position or quite the opposite—there has been evidence only to the contrary. The chief executive officer of the MMO, James Cross, wrote to Ms Portmann in August last year after a meeting at which concerns were raised about the statistics. He wrote:
	“As mentioned at the meeting, the systems operated within the MMO, and by the other UK Fisheries Administrations, to collect and process data from fishermen are subject to ongoing external EU inspections on various aspects of their operation. Commission staff, inspectors from the European Fisheries Control Agency, and the EC Court of Auditors have all visited to check on the UK’s compliance with obligations; issues are from time to time raised but these are then rectified as quickly as possible.”
	All seems fine, but he continues:
	“EU scrutiny regarding data reporting systems has included working through from the initial ‘raw’ data on activity right through to the detail reported to the Commission to ensure completeness and accuracy in the capture, processing and final reporting of data. These inspections and the checks built into the systems, in addition to MMO’s own checks and balances, give the team high confidence in the robustness of the system”.
	“Great”, we thought, “No need to worry”, but when we asked for sight of all these reports demonstrating the robustness of the statistics, the CEO’s officials eventually had to respond and admit that he was wrong and that no audits of processes and raw data handling had been carried out by any of these organisations. It is of grave concern that the senior official at a non-departmental public body is willing to try to hoodwink stakeholders and does not even know himself whether statistics are fit for purpose. Despite the fact that Ms Portman has written to him and the chair of his board, neither has responded to the assertions made by him.
	It may be helpful to outline another specific instance. For some years, the UK has overfished and not reported to the Commission the correct western waters scallop effort figures for some years. From local fisheries officers to the chief executive of the MMO; from directors of departments within the MMO to the chairman of the board; from DEFRA officials through to the Minister himself—all have received assurances that the Commission was fully aware of this and accepted it because of the early “close out” of statistics in the subsequent year.

Jim Shannon: I thank the hon. Lady for giving way on this important issue. She mentioned fisheries, which are an important issue for me as well. In Northern Ireland, fishermen and the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development’s fisheries division have carried out data-gathering exercises in the Irish sea showing that the numbers of white fish and cod fish have increased greatly. Does that not underline her point that the data collection seems right, but that its imposition, and how it might improve the fisheries division, is not carried through?

Alison Seabeck: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. He emphasises a point I will make later, which is that because of our concerns about the scallop data, those fishing other species are rightly concerned that the data on which their activity is based are also inaccurate.
	Even the Chair of the Public Accounts Committee received assurances from the MMO and DEFRA, through the National Audit Office, that the EC was aware and had sanctioned the statistics. However, documents that the MMO was recently forced to disclose by the Information Commissioner’s office show this to be simply untrue. E-mails from the MMO’s statistical unit to DEFRA officials at the time we started questioning the unreported overfishing state that the EC was not aware of the 2009 overfishing, for example—specifically, that the EC had not been told—and admit that only a 95% uptake was reported, when in reality there was an overfish of 10. Because of overfishing of effort or quota, the UK runs the risk of being fined—as I am sure the Minister is well aware—and facing infraction proceedings.
	Although I have been able to identify 2009 as the first year in which that occurred, it appears to have happened in 2010, 2011 and 2012 . We have heard time and again
	from officials that this is all due to the EC imposing short timescales for monthly and end-of-year close-out. That ought to be a nonsensical claim, as western waters vessels are fitted with e-logs. Landing declarations are made in real time and sales notes are required to be submitted within a week of landing, so how can the UK not meet the monthly close-out targets due by the 15th of the following month or the year-end target of six weeks for the end of year? Indeed, why is the UK still some months behind in some cases? The MMO controls and enforces e-logs and sales notes. There has been no substantial action against vessels or processors in the submitting of data. Despite that, MMO staff have grown in number since 2010, from 190 to 320, so what on earth are all those people doing? Clearly they are not involved in meeting the UK legal requirements for data submission.
	DEFRA must also bear a heavy responsibility for the western waters scallop debacle. Documents released by DEFRA show that officials were aware of the effort problem for some years. Indeed, internal DEFRA memos show that the person who eventually took over the western waters job in 2010 questioned why nothing had happened. By then, towards the end of 2010, DEFRA still did not act or, importantly, speak to the industry properly. Through May and June 2011, officials had some meetings and discussions with selected members of industry, but did not advertise, publicise or engage with this fragmented industry of vessels and processors—the people who did not belong to national associations. By late August 2011, DEFRA had decided a closure was likely. In early September it finally started to make that publicly known and closed the fishery in October. Even the internal e-mails from that period show that, behind the scenes, DEFRA was withholding its full intentions from the industry and even discussing the necessity of further consultation, if only for the appearance of consultation and to avoid criticism later—at least that would be my view.
	The easy answer was a realignment of effort. After my meeting with the Minister last May, Ms Portmann wrote to the EC, which suggested that this was a good idea. There was a further meeting with officials, who, it was felt, were not in favour of even trying to get an uplift. As more recently released documents show, that option was being positively considered, yet somewhere along the line they simply changed their minds. Will the Minister say what the basis for that was?
	Scallops might be a specific area where the MMO and DEFRA are failing at marine management. However, because of the questionable data trails—this touches on the point made earlier—and the clear attempts to prevent me and other interested parties from gaining access to all the information, we decided to dig elsewhere to see whether the problem was specific to scallops. What we discovered was more of the same—other sections of the industry may want to question the data following this debate. I am sure it is in the interest of both industry and organisations such as the Marine Conservation Society to ensure that we fully understand what is happening, rather than rely on what at times seems little more than guesswork.
	We questioned the MMO’s annual report for 2011-12, which was laid before this House. So far, for all the targets listed as “met” that we have questioned—we have asked for sight of evidence that they were indeed
	met—we have encountered the usual freedom-of-information handling by the MMO and, as a result, MMO complaints. There is no evidence that these targets were all met. In fact, the MMO has been forced to release evidence confirming that they were not all met. The Information Commissioner’s findings question a number of the MMO’s assertions.
	There are other targets for which we are still waiting for a response, some months after they have been asked about, and we are also looking for further evidence linked particularly to the business plan that the MMO has produced for 2013-16. We really do not want the MMO to get caught out again. We want the figures that are given to us and placed before Parliament to be factually correct.
	Further requests relating to other basic and core functions such as ensuring that licences and variations are issued in accordance with the relevant laws have met with evidence that they are in fact not, and that there is not even guidance in place for staff to follow to ensure compliance. If we add into this pot staff conferences at four-star hotels, a hospitality bill that appears not to meet the suggested standard pricing, and total bills for the hotel alone that were in excess of £80,000, we can see why people in the industry who are struggling are getting angry. I would suggest that in austere times some of those costs should be looked at again.
	I find it deeply disturbing that an organisation of which we should be genuinely proud has a culture of promoting secrecy and obfuscation from the top down when challenged by those most affected by its decisions. It is an organisation that goes to great lengths to hide its failings. It is only through the persistence of my constituent, who is in the Gallery tonight, and others in the industry that we have managed to get the necessary information to surface. The Information Commissioner’s Office has also played a key part in this.
	I put it to the Minister that the time has come for a full and detailed investigation into the nature of these figures, not least because companies such as that of my constituent are going out of business. Ms Portmann has lost her business, and that is in part due to the fact that there are inaccurate data available, and that people in the industry are not clear about the nature of the effort that they can get or the activity that they can undertake. The Minister really should take this seriously and not continue simply to accept the papers that are put in front of him by officials. This needs to be properly investigated.

Richard Benyon: I shall start by addressing the last point that the hon. Member for Plymouth, Moor View (Alison Seabeck) raised. That really is a very serious allegation. To say that the work of my Department or a part of the DEFRA family has resulted in the failure of a business is one of the most serious accusations that she could possibly make, and it is one that I would refute. I would refute it because the industry is increasing its turnover, as I shall discuss in a moment. I regret that anybody should find themselves in the circumstances that the hon. Lady has described in talking about that business but, to use my words carefully, if such a serious allegation were made outside this House, I would have to seek advice on it.
	I am not standing here trying to sound as though I am the voice of another organisation or spouting words that I have just been given. I have looked closely into this issue, and as the hon. Lady rightly said, I have met her and her constituent. I do not know whether another individual has tied up more time and resources in my Department and the Marine Management Organisation than Ms Portmann, but I can assure the House that that is my impression from discussing this with officials. I recognise the hon. Lady’s commitment and dedication to the country’s fishing industry. She has been a good voice for her constituents on many of these issues. In turn, I am committed to preserving fishing opportunities for this generation and the next through the reform of the common fisheries policy, and to protecting the fish stocks in our seas.
	This matter needs to be set in context. We are undergoing a quiet revolution in how we manage our seas, not only through the reform of the common fisheries policy. Part of the uplift in the numbers that the hon. Lady has described is due to the introduction of marine planning, which will have a dramatic effect on her constituency and on many of the businesses that function from it and off it, out at sea.
	We are also changing and leading the way in which we deliver marine conservation in Europe. There is great cause for pride in that, but it has huge resource implications for my Department and the MMO. We have created new organisations to regulate and police our seas, not least the inshore fisheries and conservation authorities and, yes, the Marine Management Organisation. As the hon. Lady knows, the MMO was formed three years ago, and it is the principal marine fisheries enforcement body in England and acts as the UK authority to co-ordinate and control activities across all four fishing administrations.
	I have seen at first hand and take a great interest in how the MMO works. It works with industry and other parts of the Government to achieve pragmatic fisheries management and management of the marine environment. The MMO, like any other regulator, relies on its ability to collate and analyse data so that it can make sound management decisions. It carries out statutory obligations for the UK, which include reporting data to the European Commission on quota uptake and fishing effort. This is a significant task. By working closely with UK fishing administrations, the MMO has dealt with data covering approximately 230,000 vessel landings a year. I say with great respect to the hon. Lady—it is sincere in this case, which it is not always when that line is delivered from this Dispatch Box—that she is receiving information on this issue from one source, whereas I receive it from a lot of other organisations, including businesses within this sector, and I get a very different story.
	These landings range from small boats that go out for only a few hours a day to vessels that may be 20 times bigger and are at sea for weeks at a time. Last year, the MMO had to deal with significant challenges to the over-15-metre scallop fishery, one of the UK’s most valuable fishing assets, under the western waters regime. Scalloping is highly profitable for the UK fishing fleet and accounts for about 9% of the total tonnage and value of fish landed by the UK fleet. Much of this activity, as the hon. Lady is well aware, takes place in ICES—International Council for the Exploration
	of the Sea—area VII, an expanse of sea that extends westwards from the channel around the Irish sea and an area where effort is restricted under the western waters regime.
	The profitable nature of this fishery has been increasingly attractive to vessels from all parts of the UK. However, for over-15-metre vessels, the UK has exceeded the limits on fishing effort—that is, days at sea—set under the western waters regime. Such overfishing risks effort penalties, which would be a severe blow to one of the most successful, productive and highest-earning fisheries found in our waters. As a result, a management regime for the area VII fishery has been agreed with the scallop industry and the four UK fisheries administrations who are working together to ensure that activity remains within our effort limits.
	On my examination of this matter, I would say that DEFRA staff and MMO staff have worked really hard to keep this fishery open in recent years by helping to find swaps and in being successful in doing so. Yes, the hon. Lady is right that it required us to close the fishery for one period, but it has been a Herculean task to keep it open in the face of the effort limitations that this area has faced.
	An industry advisory group has been established, involving catchers and processors of scallops from around the country. Those are key players in this problem. That provides industry with a lead role in taking responsibility for the management of the fishery. The MMO is an important source of information. It provides advice on levels of uptake in the fishery to inform management discussions.
	At the same time as the management regime was being established, over-15-metre UK vessels were moving from paper-based reporting to the electronic logbook system, as the hon. Lady rightly stated. Vessel operators have needed to install new on-board equipment and to revise the way in which they record their fishing activity. All the fisheries administrations have had to make corresponding changes in their systems for handling data to deal with the new sources of information. That has been a major change for UK fishermen, given that the paper-based logbook has been largely unchanged for the past 30 years.
	Generally fishermen still provide the same information, but the way in which they provide it has changed completely. In respect of data management for the western waters scallop fishery, the MMO has responded to the challenges by working closely with the scalloping sector and other administrations to develop new analytical systems for collected data.

Alison Seabeck: I appreciate that this is a complex issue and that change is always difficult, but does the Minister not share my view that in many respects the MMO has not helped itself by persistently insisting that everything must be done through a freedom of information request, or that we apply to the Information Commissioner? Will he please at least accept that when a member of the industry asks for information, it should not be treated as if it were top secret?

Richard Benyon: The hon. Lady is right. There are no state secrets here. There is no market-sensitive information, or at any rate very little. I think the hon. Lady would admit, however, that the plethora of FOI requests from
	her constituent has reached confetti proportions. When they are responded to—as they are—there is a follow-up, and another and another. If that information were vital to the results of information being passed to the European Commission, I would understand.
	However, it is true that sometimes it has been found that the MMO has not given exactly the right detail. I am not complacent, and I want everyone in my Department to provide information of a high standard at all times, but let me suggest respectfully that the way in which information has been applied for has rather given the impression that the perfect is the enemy of the good.
	The new data processes make use of a key benefit from the electronic logbooks, allowing near real-time monitoring of scalloping effort, and allowing each administration to monitor individual near real-time vessel activity as part of the enforcement of days-at-sea limits. Engagement with the industry has been a priority, and we have sought for it to take responsibility for the management of the fishery. Over the last 18 months, administrations have worked closely with the scallop industry consultation group. A management system has been agreed which sets quarterly days-at-sea limits for vessels affected by the regime. Industry compliance has been strong, and improved significantly throughout 2012 and into 2013.
	The use of the monitoring system, supported by a close working relationship between MMO coastal staff and vessel operators, helped to produce circumstances in which no English vessels exceeded their days-at-sea limits for the first quarter of 2013. In 2012, that working relationship allowed the fishery to stay open throughout the year, and virtually all effort available to the UK was used. As I have said, that involved a Herculean effort on the part of a great many people.
	Despite effort restrictions, the scalloping sector remains profitable. That is very important. Last year, sales of UK scallop landings reached almost £70 million, an increase from £64 million in 2011 and from £55 million in 2010. Furthermore, last year the over-15-metre fleet fishing in ICES area VII landed more than 27,000 tonnes, worth £29 million, which was a substantial increase on the 14,000 tonnes, worth £17 million, which were landed in 2008. We want this profitable industry to continue to be the success that those figures have proved it to be.
	The MMO works collaboratively with the industry and the UK Administrations, setting days-at-sea limits and organising industry-sourced international effort swaps to provide additional effort to the industry. This collaborative approach has helped ensure that the UK
	scalloping sector has enough effort to remain economically active and profitable all year round. Generally, its efforts have been well received by the industry.
	I am aware of the concerns raised by the scalloping sector about time lags and the frustrations these can cause, and the hon. Lady also rightly raised them. Data lags are caused by the need to validate data and conduct quality checks required under European legislation before data are reported to the Commission. The Commission acknowledges these time lags are an inherent part of the control systems that all member states are required to operate. They are caused by the nature and extent of the validation processes that need to take place. Logbook data need to be checked with satellite vehicle monitoring systems data and with other notes. That cannot be done overnight.
	However, the House should note that these reports are not used to make management decisions, or to monitor the fishery. As of 2013 and the introduction of electronic logbooks, these decisions are based on real-time data systems that have been developed since the introduction of e-logbooks, which virtually eliminate the impact of data lag for management purposes. I hope that reassures the hon. Lady about the way this issue is moving.
	I recognise the immense challenges faced by fishermen and those working in the fishing industry. The hon. Lady raised a point about the accuracy of corporate reporting. As I said earlier, the MMO is three years old. It continues to evolve, striving for better services and, driven by Ministers, to make sure it is as efficient as possible. Transparency and accountability are key to its decisions.
	The MMO’s openness to feedback and willingness to address issues are admirable, although we clearly have a problem, and perceptions to all extents and purposes are reality, so I want to address the point she raised. I know that a query was raised against an annexe to the last annual report and accounts which presented an end-of-year status on whether targets were met or were not met. Following feedback, the MMO has recognised the potential for misinterpretation of the information. The MMO will provide a clarification in the next annual report, to be published this summer. In future, it will report with additional granularity against performance measures and key steps delivered during the year.
	I can give the hon. Lady, and other Members, every assurance that I will work with them to make sure that concerns are addressed. I have asked DEFRA and MMO officials to pursue compliance through consultation and mutual co-operation.
	Question put and agreed to.
	House adjourned.